Outside the Box Recovery
The theft of 900 cigarette packs during internal transit within Colombia sparked a debate over the insurance policy's coverage, which the transporter held to support liability for such incidents. BARBUSS Claims, representing the insurer that compensated the cargo owner, managed the recovery process, the legal complexities and finding an alternative solution through a financial infidelity policy.
The Case
The theft involved 900 cartons of cigarettes owned by a well-known importing company while on route within Colombia. The theft occurred when criminals presented themselves at a parking facility where the vehicle transporting the goods was parked, using the ticket issued to the driver by the facility hired by the cargo owner. Following the incident, the cargo owner activated its goods-in-transit insurance, receiving compensation of approximately USD 300,000.
The insurer of the cargo owner covered the claim and contracted BARBUSS Claims to initiate a recovery action against the transporter, who was responsible for the cargo at the time of the theft.
?
The Challenge
While analyzing the case, BARBUSS identified a potential obstacle for recovery due to the unique circumstances of the theft. The fact that the criminal had the parking ticket handed to the driver raised suspicions about possible involvement of the transport company’s personnel, making it unlikely that the transporter’s civil liability policy would respond, as this policy typically covers events of this nature only if there is no intentional conduct involved.
?
How BARBUSS Claims Handled the Case
BARBUSS filed the claim with the transport company, which then forwarded it to its liability insurer. Despite evidence of the transporter’s responsibility in the event, the insurer refused the claim, citing an exclusion for cases involving deliberate conduct by the insured. Indications of the driver’s involvement in the crime had surfaced during BARBUSS’s initial assessment of the case.
The transport company appealed to its insurer, but they defended its position, suspecting collusion or misconduct by the transport company’s employees.
With the insurer’s refusal to provide financial backing for the claim, the transport company stated it lacked the financial means to assume liability of this magnitude, as verified through a feasibility study on potential legal proceedings.
Given BARBUSS’s experience in recoveries, the team knew some transport companies held additional insurance to cover possible losses due to employee misconduct. After inquiring, they discovered the transporter held a Financial Infidelity Risk (IRF) policy.
Though this type of policy is uncommon for such incidents, BARBUSS guided the transporter through the claim process under this policy. The claim was eventually accepted by the financial infidelity insurer, securing a good alternative outcome for BARBUSS’s client.
This case emphasizes the value of exploring multiple options to achieve optimal outcomes immediately.