Bullshit. The company is liable for that car whether the guy was authorized or not to drive it. Even if there insurance refuses to pay the company should. Sounds like they are trying to skate on it.
That depends on their actions.
Company insurance covers authorized drivers, it does not cover everyone in the company. Also, the company is not technically liable for unauthorized drivers either (think about it, if someone steals your car and gets into an accident, are you liable).
Now, if there is evidence that the driver was, in fact, authorized, then the company is liable. It would also be possible to argue for a de-facto authorization if he had regular access to the keys, had driven the vehicle on previous occasions, or was allowed to keep his job after the accident since misuse of company property is generally grounds for termination.
For those talking about the company filing a police report for a stolen vehicle, that's simply not reasonable. It is entirely possible (indeed, it is more than probable) that the company did not even know that the unauthorized driver had taken the car until after the accident. Even if the company decided not to press charges, that still is not enough to indicate a de-facto authorization as the company may feel that termination is sufficient retribution and that the potential loss of goodwill from pursuing a conviction of the terminated employee would be a greater cost than simply paying out of pocket to replace the vehicle.
ZV