Mods: Not sure if this should be FQ or IMHO or GD…please move if I got it wrong.
I was reading this article recently:
Full Title: Thieves argued they should face lesser charge because their stolen goods were on sale
The DA’s office said the documented value of the stolen items was about $2,095. Under Colorado law, theft between $2,000 to $5,000 is a Class A felony, while theft under $2,000 is a misdemeanor — the charge that Green and Bolden’s attorneys argued for, citing that the items they took were on sale.
Is there a legal answer to this question? How is the “value” of a stolen item determined? Heck, I suppose you could argue the stolen item is not the marked-up value posted but rather what it cost the store.
A friend of mine had a sculpture stolen. He put in a $5000 claim to the insurance company. They came back with a check for $65 based on the value of the materials. He appealed. They said ‘sue us’.
Probably depends on the power position of the individuals involved.
I’m going to guess that the words “usual and customary” are going to be involved, here. If it’s the sort of store that always has a “sale” on everything, then in the eyes of the law, the “sale” probably isn’t real, and the “usual and customary” price is the “sale” price. On the other hand, if it’s the more typical situation where any given item is only on sale for one week every few months, then the “usual and customary price” would be the non-sale price.
A LOT of homeowner’s policies have explicit exclusions for any/all high value stuff. Or have desultory limits for what they’ll pay out against a loss. e.g. $1K total for every single electronic thing you own even if every last one is stolen or destroyed by a tornado.
You can buy explicit full value (or “stated value”) coverage for those items. By submitting appraisals to support your price e.g. $6500, and by paying the premium they demand to insure $6,500 worth of risk. Which is usually pretty minimal: a few dollars per year per item.
If you (any you) own anything of concentrated value (and even a single new iPad is an example) it pays to read your fine print. You’re almost certainly not as covered as you naively assume you are.
Shame your (@Crane’s) friend didn’t know to do that.
Logic would suggest the price of the item at the time it was stolen would be the value of the item. I suspect if the price went up after it was stolen, the lawyers would not be saying “Hey! My client wants the value to be over $2000 now.” What if the sale ends before the case gets to trial? (What if they stole bitcoin or pork bellies?)
Generally, when there’s a dispute over prices, (IANAL) I imagine it would come down to “fair market value”. If the store overcharges (it’s a boutique store) and mostly sells items when they go on sale, maybe the lawyers have a case.
I also wonder if the prosecutor wants to make this into a case with grounds for appeal. If this issue has never yet been decided by a higher court, then how badly do they want to risk the case being overturned on appeal?
(Which brings up the interesting question - if the clients are convicted, then the appeal court says “no”, can they be retried on the lesser charge? Is it worth the cost of an appeal and a second trial over an issue of $65? Or, if the lawyer successfully argues they are not guilty of theft over $2,000 and the jury agrees - they didn’t - then double jeopardy presumably applies? I could see a jury member saying “$500 for a mixer?? Nope!”)
In a civil case the replacement cost of an item would count. I think if Kohl sued the thieves for their loss they might not get more than the wholesale value of the item. If it were something used stolen from an individual the value would also be depreciated.
I don’t know what happens in a matter of theft from a retail outlet which can set the price of items independent of the market. I would think prosecutors would want to evaluate how a judge or jury might see the crime and not inflate the degree of the crime unrealistically. OTOH they can probably modify the charge in court based on the judges opinion before a verdict and start from the higher value to get the perpetrators to plead out to a lesser charge.
I’ve been involved in a couple of disputes over this. You’re right, there is no dispute over value with these policies (or shouldn’t be). The cost is generally 1% per year. (I’m sure it varies, but that’s the number I always saw).
Of course, back to the OP, the “insured value” would not necessarily be what matters in a criminal case.
I strongly suspect the issue has long been decided by many higher courts. A quick google search even suggests that a number of jurisdictions may even have statutes covering how value of stolen property should be determined in a criminal case.
Legally, the value of some thing might be deemed a “question of fact” that is left to the province of the jury. Let both sides present evidence and let the jury make a determination.
Well, you can get full market value from an insurance company. By telling them you want to insure it, agreeing on a value through some mutually satisfactory appraisal method, and paying for the insurance.
But I’m unclear why @Crane and his friend seem surprised that an insurance company won’t pay out for something that they didn’t tell the insurance company they wanted to insure.
Well, you dont have to tell them everything. When I did my claim, I didnt tell my insurance company in advance about the mattress, computer and books that were ruined by flooding.
But yeah, if you have something special, then get a rider.
