Yolo hay thief sentenced to jail after failing to pay for crime

Just out of curiosity. When a theft like this occures, and the farmer has Insurance, does the Insurance cover the theft also? Can the loss also be counted for tax purposes? If so, when the reimbursement is received, is it owed back to your Insurance or counted as an income, since it was previousy counted as a loss? Notjing meant by this, just wondering. Peace

Brain Dead.. Great name. When you put a claim into your insurance carrier for $250,000.00, that is if you had insurance in the first place for your hay crop, you might get some money from your insurance company but then you will be either cancelled, or your insurance will go through the roof. I would expect the insurance company told the farmer to take the guy to court. Who is paying for court fees, lawyer fees? I'm sure it's not the criminal! Fact is the guy broke the law.

Knights Landing wrote:

Brain Dead.. Great name. When you put a claim into your insurance carrier for $250,000.00, that is if you had insurance in the first place for your hay crop, you might get some money from your insurance company but then you will be either cancelled, or your insurance will go through the roof. I would expect the insurance company told the farmer to take the guy to court. Who is paying for court fees, lawyer fees? I'm sure it's not the criminal! Fact is the guy broke the law.

Thank You. I did not even think about the claim and insurance either cancelling or raising costs. Will the theif still have to pay for the hay, after he does his prison time. I would certainly hope so.

Brain Dead wrote:

Just out of curiosity. When a theft like this occures, and the farmer has Insurance, does the Insurance cover the theft also? Can the loss also be counted for tax purposes? If so, when the reimbursement is received, is it owed back to your Insurance or counted as an income, since it was previousy counted as a loss? Notjing meant by this, just wondering. Peace

A victim cannot receive a windfall. It appears the choices would be:

1. Do nothing, get nothing (eat the loss) if the stolen property is not recovered.
2. File a civil suit, naming the defendant, for the loss.
3. Allow the CJ system, via court ordered restitution, akin to a a 'civil judgment'(still have to collect the monies from the defendant; which may be dificult).
4. If insured, file an insurance claim with concomitant issues (rate hike, dropped?)
5. If insured and claim is filed,(for whole loss not just deductable) AND CJ system orders restitution, the insurance pays out. The insurance company becomes a derivitive victim and has to be reimbursed for restitution collected from the defendant. So the victim cannot retain both insurance proceeds and collect the restitution as that would be a windfall.

IMHO

Brain Dead wrote:

<quoted text>Thank You. I did not even think about the claim and insurance either cancelling or raising costs. Will the theif still have to pay for the hay, after he does his prison time. I would certainly hope so.

I bet what will happen is this.. once the guy is out of prison, or maybe before, he will file for bankruptcy. They usually do this from a court, I think in Kentucky. The farmer will get ZERO only a bill from his lawyer! Trust me! Been there. Only our crop was taken out of the country. Never got one red penny. We had to pay the lawyers, plus pay our bank loan! Received absoutly nothing from our insurance company.

Knights Landing wrote:

<quoted text>
I bet what will happen is this.. once the guy is out of prison, or maybe before, he will file for bankruptcy. They usually do this from a court, I think in Kentucky. The farmer will get ZERO only a bill from his lawyer! Trust me! Been there. Only our crop was taken out of the country. Never got one red penny. We had to pay the lawyers, plus pay our bank loan! Received absoutly nothing from our insurance company.

FYI, court ordered restitution can NOT be discharged through bankruptcy. Moreover, it is consistant with a civil judgment, for life. So even if the defendant does not have the money now, he/she may come into money in the future.

Guilty wrote:

<quoted text>
FYI, court ordered restitution can NOT be discharged through bankruptcy. Moreover, it is consistant with a civil judgment, for life. So even if the defendant does not have the money now, he/she may come into money in the future.

That all sounds great but it doesn't always work in the real world! In our case, which happened several years ago, the California Dept. of Ag even had a warrent out for the guy, he literally disappeared!Left the country, and is living some where in Canada the last we heard.

Knights Landing wrote:

<quoted text>
That all sounds great but it doesn't always work in the real world! In our case, which happened several years ago, the California Dept. of Ag even had a warrent out for the guy, he literally disappeared!Left the country, and is living some where in Canada the last we heard.

That IS real world. I whole heartedly agree that it's unfortunate that the real world can be so ugly. Your anecdote is but one case, however.

Maybe one day the chickens will come home to roost and the person(s) in your case will be apprehended.

Boy you people sure dont know much about insurance. *IF* there is such a beast as hay theft insurance and the claim was paid, the INSURANCE COMPANY gets the money from the thief if any is forthcoming - just like if you have comprehensive car insurance - your insurance pays YOU, then your insurance company sues the other driver.

Mark D wrote:

Boy you people sure dont know much about insurance.*IF* there is such a beast as hay theft insurance and the claim was paid, the INSURANCE COMPANY gets the money from the thief if any is forthcoming - just like if you have comprehensive car insurance - your insurance pays YOU, then your insurance company sues the other driver.

Ergo IF the beast exists -

Still, NOT exactly.

1st, you aren't really trying to say our court's dockets are replete with cases of insurance company A 'suing' insurance company B, a thousand times over, re: traffic accidents, do you?

2nd, the "thief" pays the collections authority who in turn remits payment to the victim. Thereafter, the victim is expected to pay back the insurance company. UNLESS the court orders/makes the insurance company a "direct victim." Ordinarily, for an insurance company to be a direct victim they would have to be the actual victim.

So back at ya! Let's see how you put it:

"...Boy you...sure dont know much about...."

Mark D wrote:

Boy you people sure dont know much about insurance.*IF* there is such a beast as hay theft insurance and the claim was paid, the INSURANCE COMPANY gets the money from the thief if any is forthcoming - just like if you have comprehensive car insurance - your insurance pays YOU, then your insurance company sues the other driver.

It is umbrella'd into a plan which I am sure farmers have to protect their crop and machinery. Just like any other insurance. I stand by Guilty's response as he has always given me correct information and an education. In the case mentioned above, the party skipped out and left the Country. That is very disheartening. I was burglarized for over $18,000 and received $10,000 from my Insurance. That is all I had receipts for. I had taken pictures of my belongings with my digital camera and downloaded onto my computer but the camera and computer where taken in the burglary. Mine is still held up in the court system. I guess, if he is ordered to pay me the $18,000 then I will owe $10,000 back to my insurance company. Hopefully my insurance will not go up if I pay them back. If the defendent is ordered to pay back only $10,000 and it goes to my insurance company, then I am out $8,000 plus the $1,000 deductable. I certainly hope not.

By far the most interesting posts on this site ever. Who thought a hay crime would start such intelligent deliberations.

The informed citizen wrote:

By far the most interesting posts on this site ever. Who thought a hay crime would start such intelligent deliberations.

It's Woodland. What do you expect?

Funny how the DA's Office did say who the investigator was for this case? For us who know him in the DA's Office, it was Senior Investigator Rick Gore, the same guy who said DA Reisig was a crook and hid evidence. Ummmmmmm, wonder how they got a conviction on this crooked guy if Mr. Gore was "not telling" the truth on DA Reisig????

Who Investigated wrote:

Funny how the DA's Office did say who the investigator was for this case? For us who know him in the DA's Office, it was Senior Investigator Rick Gore, the same guy who said DA Reisig was a crook and hid evidence. Ummmmmmm, wonder how they got a conviction on this crooked guy if Mr. Gore was "not telling" the truth on DA Reisig????

Do you mean to say that all liers don't lie all the time?

Or

Do all liers NOT lie all the time?

Jus' askin'

Who Investigated wrote:

Funny how the DA's Office did say who the investigator was for this case? For us who know him in the DA's Office, it was Senior Investigator Rick Gore, the same guy who said DA Reisig was a crook and hid evidence. Ummmmmmm, wonder how they got a conviction on this crooked guy if Mr. Gore was "not telling" the truth on DA Reisig????

Or do all liers lie all the time?

Maybe he means that if they can use Mr. Gore's testimony to convict people and send them to jail, then why can't they use it to show how dirty DA Reisig is?