[ QUOTE ]
Your example is perfectly legal as a repair, provided the VIN
has not been removed from the original car (in the center).
NICB maintains records on people, driving records, motor vehicles, any past claims on them, especially fraudulent activity, etc. Anything that would affect the rights/remedies of an insurance company is added to the database and cross referenced by the VIN or biographical information. In other words, you can bet an insurance company would be interested
if they are insuring a car for $600k that is worth only $150K due to VIN tampering/rebodying.
Did you read my response to your earlier post? I guess not. You have no actual experience with Federal law. I do. You can either believe what I tell you from my experience or not. I don't really care.
It's people who don't follow legal advice, that I make my living, dealing with.
I'm done. Anything more and I bill for my hours.
[/ QUOTE ]
Im response to all of this:
1. If you look at the areas of my post on page one that are bolded it clearly shows an allowance for removal and MOVING a V.I.N.
2. The B-J $600K rebody sale example shows that the bidders apparently didn't CARE that the car was rebodied and therefore by its sale proves that. Price guides for these old cars that lenders and insurance companies use for determining value are compiled from auction results and reporting old car dealers. The value of THIS car creates it's own comparible with it's sale at auction WITH full disclosure. There were multiple buyers (obviously) involved in the sales since it was an auction.
The whole point of this example is to show that the price of the car was NOT effected by the fact that it was a rebody. The car burned in a fore. The owner salvaged what they could. They bought another donor body and made one car of the remains of two. The same way that wreck rebuilders do from cars they purchase from insurance company sales.
3. Did you read the copy and paste from the Dynacorn FAQ section of their web site regarding the use of an existing V.I.N. plate for their replacement bodies? Do you think that maybe they had some pretty good legal advise on this issue?
4. Yes, I read yours and all others in this thread word for word. You don't know me or what my experience is so let me tell you. I spent 30 years in the auto business. I have seen every type of title senario there is. It was one of my jobs to watch for cars being traded that had problems e.g. stolen cars, V.I.N. tampering, etc. I was involved in the leader ads that were run in print, radio, and TV. I have had MANY conversations with the State's attorney general about what is legal and what is not. I personally had a 1966 Corvette that was stolen and recovered that the V.I.N. tag was removed and destroyed by the theives during the time it was missing. I was able to LEGALLY have an accurate reproduction V.I.N. plate made and re-installed on the car. So, I am familiar with these matters from a very professional, personal, and legal standpoint.
4. I know as an attorney it is your nature and job to argue your point, look for ways to twist and portray the law to the out come you are looking for. An attorney's OPNINON is just that, and the same for an opposing attorney on the other side of a case. I guess you can consider ME the other attorney in this case.
It is a JUDGE'S job to listen to both sides and review the existing law and case law of other cases and make a decision based on the facts. It is pretty easy to see that the V.I.N. tampering law was created to thwart auto theives and chop shops and not effect restorers, repairers, and wreck rebuilders. The Federal law makers apparently thought enough about these law abidding citizens to write the exceptions to the law as spelled out on my post on page one to protect those people.
5. Maybe I should be the one sending a bill for legal advise. Oh, wait, that would be illegal for praticing law without a license.
Seriously, as I stated at the top of my opening post, I am not trying to influence you or anyone else with this information, but rather inform people as to what the law says. It is very clear to me that the INTENT of the law was to thwart CRIMINALS not the old car hobby. When it is all said and done the vlaues of these rebodied cars will seek their own value. The B-J Cuda example is just that, an example to the hobby of how some buyers don't consider it a problem. I have a long post saved regarding the perpetual rebody/restoration arguement that shows both sides of it, if you or anyone else is interested I can post it here.