Summary
A software engineer's car was stolen from his apartment complex parking in Whitefield. ICICI Lombard rejected the claim citing negligence — claiming the car was left in an 'unsecured area' despite the complex having CCTV and security guards. We gathered the FIR filed within 4 hours, the complex's security audit report, and CCTV footage showing the theft. The claim was approved in full within 28 days.
How We Solved It
S Situation
29-year-old IT professional parked his car in the designated apartment parking with CCTV and 24/7 security. Car stolen at 2 AM. FIR filed by 6 AM. Insurer rejected citing 'unsecured parking' despite apartment society's security certificate.
T Task
Prove the parking was secured per insurer's policy terms and that the policyholder took all reasonable precautions. Overturn the negligence rejection.
A Action
- 1. Obtained FIR copy filed within 4 hours of theft
- 2. Collected apartment society's security audit certificate and CCTV maintenance logs
- 3. Got CCTV footage from the complex showing the theft in progress
- 4. Referenced ICICI Lombard's own policy wording: 'designated parking area' not 'guaranteed theft-proof'
- 5. Drafted appeal with Supreme Court precedent on 'reasonable care' standard
R Result
ICICI Lombard's appellate authority reversed the rejection in 18 days. Full IDV of 12,00,000 paid. The reversal letter acknowledged the parking met 'reasonable care' standard.
Lessons Learned
- FIR within 24 hours is critical — we filed in 4
- Apartment security certificates are valid proof of 'secured parking'
- Insurer's 'negligence' must be proven, not assumed
- Supreme Court: reasonable care ≠ absolute theft prevention
"The insurer said I was careless parking in my own apartment. Hari Sir got the society's security audit and CCTV logs. They reversed their decision and paid the full IDV in less than a month."
— The insurer | Whitefield, Bangalore
Related Case Studies
Have a similar situation?
Motor claim rejected for negligence? Get a free review of your rejection letter and FIR.