Brink’s driver was asleep during armored truck heist, lawsuit says
LOS ANGELES CA Aug 26 2022— A lawsuit filed by armored truck company Brink’s in federal court says that the driver of a tractor-trailer targeted by thieves was asleep during the robbery and did not notice anything out of the ordinary.
The Brink’s truck was carrying 73 bags of jewelry from a gem and jewelry show in San Mateo when it stopped at a Flying J Travel Center en route to Los Angeles. According to the lawsuit, while one driver was in the sleeping berth, the other went to get food inside the rest stop. When the driver returned to the truck 27 minutes later, the lock and plastic seal to the trailer had been cut away. A total of 22 bags were stolen from the truck.
The value of the gems stolen was described by some as worth less than $10 million and others as more than $100 million, which has prompted two lawsuits to be filed in the case on either side of the country.
Thirteen jewelers whose property was stolen in the heist filed a lawsuit against Brink’s and other parties in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging breach of contract and negligence, The Associated Press reported.
“Everyone in our group has been emotionally and financially destroyed,” the plaintiffs said in a statement to the AP. “We are lost and do not know what comes next in our lives. Whatever plans we all have for the future and for our businesses and our families has evaporated in an instant.”
The jewelers are asking for at least $100 million in restitution and another $100 million in damages, and allege in their lawsuit that the truck was not armed and not parked in a secure location, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Brink’s filed a lawsuit against the jewelers in federal court in the Southern District of New York, saying that the jewelers under-declared the value of the items that were being transported. In its lawsuit, Brink’s said the pickup manifests signed by the jewelers list the value of the merchandise in the stolen bags as $8.7 million, the AP reported. The company argues in the lawsuit that it is only responsible for the items’ declared value.
