In the absence of any trace of break-in and of any other clue materializing the proof and reality of the theft of a vehicle, you risk encountering a refusal of compensation from your insurer.
The absence of any trace of break-in in the event of an attempted theft will most often be treated as an act of vandalism covered, where applicable, by an additional guarantee other than that covering the theft.
Note, for example, that the fraudulent subtraction of engine parts is sufficient to characterize the attempted theft as the manipulation of wires or electrical contacts.
However, how to react if the vehicle found is unharmed?
In this regard, the proof of the theft is free and the filing of a complaint constitutes proof of the theft of your vehicle.
You can demonstrate the theft, even without breaking and entering, by any means (home or car-jacking, assaults, theft of keys in the home, expertise, etc.).
According to the judges, the insurer cannot impose on its insured a method of proof to demonstrate the theft and impose on its insured predetermined or limited indices to characterize the theft (deterioration, forcing of the vehicle, etc.).
Electronic break-ins, which are most often excluded from the definition of break-in by insurers, are now welcomed by judges who recognize them as a break-in in the common sense of the term.
So know that it is the judge who will assess in the event of a dispute with the insurer the proof of the break-in and theft of the vehicle and in particular, for example, depending on whether or not you can produce all the keys of the vehicle and the findings of the vehicle. expertise on the vehicle.