Sure FF, some employee of a nationwide major bank wants a car, so they repo one of their customers for "no reason". Grow up!
Banks or other finance companies make more money if the loan is paid in full than if the car is a repo. This is a FACT of the finance industry.
The decision to repo or not repo is based on several factors. Does the customer have the ability to pay going forward; how far behind is the customer; what is the payment history of the customer; how far into the loan term is the default; What is the possibility of the customer hiding, destroying or damaging the colateral; can the "word" of the customer be trusted.
The only reason a lender will add insurance is because the borrower FAILS to carry the REQUIRED insurance. If the borrower also fails to pay the insurance on time, then the insurance will be cancelled and the lender will be informed accordingly. I suspect in this instance the borrower had multiple insurance cancellations during the term of the loan and the lender became suspicious and/or concerned the collateral was in danger of not being covered.
The contract requires each payment to be made on time...it doesn't matter whether the borrower is in the hospital, out of work, in jail, on the moon or asleep. Why is it so-o-o "shocking" they wanted payment when the borrower AGREED to pay it ON TIME?
When the car is repoed, it is sold at auction. The difference between what the auction brings and what the borrower STILL OWES is the $7800. Again, nothing new, nothing unusual here.
Audacity is when a borrower FAILS TO LIVE UP TO THE TERMS of the contract and then expects the lender to look the other way.