THEInsurers regularly call on detective agencies to verify the veracity of the declarations of their policyholders, when they appear suspicious to them. A statement made a week after a burglary and a list of stolen items that continues to grow over the days are enough to put the chip in their ears, as the following case shows.
On December 3, 2015, MMA, insurer of X, was surprised to receive their report of break-in theft with a week’s delay, relating to the burglary which would have been committed at their home on November 16, 2015. Indeed, its general conditions specify that “ the theft must be declared at the latest within two working days following the date on which the insured became aware of the loss, any late declaration, except for fortuitous events or force majeure, which could result in forfeiture of cover ”.
The general conditions of its insurance policy also state that ” the theft must be reported immediately to the police or gendarmerie authorities “. However, the X waited until December 2, 2015 to file a complaint. When they submitted a first list of stolen objects (games console, bag, jewelry, etc.), they omitted the largest (Grundig television) as well as those which they nevertheless had daily use (computers and mobile phones).
On December 15, 2015, MMA received an even different list from those filed on December 2 and 3. Its policyholders have notably added a mobile phone and two tablets. When the company receives the proof of purchase it has requested, it finds that it mainly has receipts. When the X’s have provided him with invoices, they are, most of the time, not in their name. The television was thus purchased on September 8, 2015 by a certain MY The Adidas sneakers belong to a Mme Z. Invoices for Diesel watches, Ipads and Arai motorcycle helmets are in the name of the 25-year-old son.
” Gifts “
He certainly writes a certificate under the terms of which he claims to have bought these objects with the aim of offering them to his sister, brother or father. But the insurer remains perplexed, given his young age and the amount of such gifts (9,000 euros). He therefore asks an independent cabinet to conduct the investigation.
The detective in charge finds that the invoices of the allegedly stolen Apple devices do not include the barcode systematically appearing on those issued by the company to the apple. And that the serial numbers are not listed with the manufacturer. He concludes that neither the Mac Book Pro, “Bought 1 999 euros on October 12, 2013”, nor the iPad Pro, “Bought 1,099 euros on October 5, 2015”, nor the iPhone 6S, “Bought 969 euros on October 17, 2015”, do not exist.
You have 26.66% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.