[brimble]

I'm with you. I'm not following how reimbursing the original owner years and years ago gives the insurance company a stronger claim to ownership of a wreck than being the original owner (if un-reimbursed by insurance so that's not a factor, one supposes)

[djbebs]

This. It makes no sense, and insurance contract is merely a transfer of risk, and potentially ownership of any claims. It does not in itself create any claims

[lazide]

As mentioned above, as part of the insurance company settling claims they often get ownership rights to the now damaged/destroyed/lost goods. That way they can recover some of their loss, and can quite explicitly stop (from a legal perspective) certain types of insurance fraud. Stuff like ‘losing’ jewelry and then conveniently finding it again later becomes theft AND insurance fraud, for instance.

So they became the new owner, AND had actually kept the paperwork.

[brimble]

What tripped me up was the seemingly-conflicting notion in the post that, typically, salvage belongs to the salvager, not the owner. It seems like the opposite is true? How it read to me was that there must be some kind of exception for insurers once they take ownership of something, but if the default is actually that the owner still owns it (minus reasonable salvage fees, and if they can prove it) and the point was that it was impressive they could still prove it after all that time, then it all makes sense.

[lazide]

That’s not what is happening, or what salvage means?

if there is no identifiable owner, then the salvor (the one who salvages) is generally entitled to the property as a reward for salvage, but not always. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_salvage]

If there IS an identifiable owner, the salvor is entitled to a reward that takes into account the difficulty in salvaging and the value of the salvaged property, assuming there was no contract that was more specific.