BAKERSFIELD, Calif. -- A local man wants U-Haul to pay for his damaged Ford Bronco after it was totaled by a stolen rental truck.

Steven Smith said the rental company should have insurance coverage at all times on their vehicles. But U-Haul said state law does not require it to pay for the damage caused by a car thief.

Smith said Tuesday that he heard the crash at about 1:30 a.m. on Jan. 18. The Bronco had been parked in front of his house, but he found it pushed into the middle of the street, and a damaged U-Haul "box van" abandoned on the front lawn of a neighbor's house.

The front of the 1993 Bronco was smashed in, Smith has been told it's a total loss. He says "blue book" value on the Bronco is $5,200 -- he thinks U-Haul should pay him that.

"Fix our vehicle, or pay us for the blue book value," Smith told Eyewitness News on Tuesday.

Smith has the California Highway Patrol report on the accident. It says the officer who investigated the crash found a rental receipt and contacted an individual who had rented the U-Haul vehicle.

That customer told the officer the rental truck had been returned to the U-Haul facility at White Lane and Ash on Jan.16 at about 9 p.m., and the keys had been dropped in the mail slot "as instructed by the rental company."

The CHP officer then drove to the U-Haul facility and looked at the key-drop area, and reports seeing several rental vehicle keys on the floor just inside the clear glass door about two feet below the open mail slot.

"The keys were within easy access of anyone with a wire coat hanger or similar device," continued the report.

Smith said the first day after the crash, U-Haul said he would be paid for his damaged vehicle. But, a couple days later he got letters and calls saying the company would not compensate him for the totaled Bronco.

"They said because it had allegedly been stolen, and that is allegedly that there was no active coverage on the vehicle," Smith reports the company spokesmen had told him.

Smith said he is confused by that response.

"Even talking to the people with the state department of the Commissioner of Insurance, they said they're supposed to maintain 24 hours of coverage on the vehicles," Smith said.

Eyewitness News called the manager of the U-Haul store on White Lane, but he could not comment. Eyewitness News then contacted the corporation, and got a response from the regional office.

"The police investigation determined that the U-Haul vehicle was stolen and that the prior customer was not responsible for the theft of the equipment. Because it was determined that the customer and U-Haul were not at fault for the accident, state law does not hold the victims of a crime to be responsible," reads the statement from Todd Ferreira, President of U-Haul company of Fresno.

"In fact, if the thief is apprehended by police Mr. Smith can take legal action and get restitution from the perpetrator of the crime," the statement continues. U-Haul also said if the facts were reversed and Smith's car was stolen and run into a U-Haul truck, the company would not expect Smith or his insurance to pay up.

U-Haul also said they were sorry Smith had "fallen victim to this crime," and that his insurance did not provide adequate coverage for his loss.

Smith said he had the Bronco insured, but not for "collision," because the family wasn't driving it that much.

Still, Smith believes U-Haul's insurance should pay up for the Bronco destroyed by one of their vehicles. Smith said he was told the company's insurance would pay for the damage to the badly damaged U-Haul truck.

"Their vehicle is going to be covered, but not ours."