There's a doctrine in the legal world called the "attractive nuisance" doctrine. The proverbial example is a landowner has a pool on their property. A child, m

There's a doctrine in the legal world called the "attractive nuisance" doctrine. The proverbial example is a landowner has a pool on their property. A child, maybe just one in the neighborhood, sees it and wants to go swimming, so they hop in. The child isn't a good enough swimmer to do so unassisted and drowns. The parents file a lawsuit. The landowner expects their insurance provider to help aid in the defense and any judgment made against them. The insurance provider will then look at the pool. Was it surrounded by a fence? Did the fence have a locked gate? Was there any kind of alarm to indicate that someone was in the pool? If the answer to any of those questions is "no" (particularly to the fence and gate parts) then the insurer might very well decline to cover the claim. Why? Because it's not unreasonable, at least not to many people who sit on juries, to expect someone to have ways of keeping children out of pools due to the threat of drowning. I'm not a lawyer, but you can sort of make that argument with the cars Hyundai was manufacturing. People on a jury might think it's not unreasonable to expect auto manufacturers to make their vehicles more difficult to steal, especially if doing so is common across the industry. It's the most expensive thing most people own and its theft can harm both the owner of the vehicle and the community they live in since stolen vehicles are often used in other crimes. The person stealing the car is still liable, but if they're targeting your vehicles because you didn't want to put a relatively inexpensive part in the car to boost your profits on each vehicle sold, some people think you're liable too.