Warehouse fire: red flags, fraudulent-claim condition and regulatory pressure
A garment exporter's warehouse burns on 2 August. The policy is a standard fire policy with a sum insured of ₹6 crore on stock. The insured notifies on the same day and claims ₹4.9 crore, close to the sum insured. The warehouse keeper says the fire started at 02:40 and the alarm did not sound. The fire brigade report notes two separate seats of fire and a strong smell of diesel near the loading bay; the insured's security guard is missing. The stock records were kept on a laptop in the office and are destroyed; the only surviving record is a bank hypothecation statement dated 30 April showing stock of ₹1.2 crore. The insured produces purchase invoices dated 12, 18, 24 and 29 July totalling ₹3.8 crore from a supplier whose GST registration was cancelled in May. The insured's earlier policy with another insurer was cancelled for non-payment in June, and the current policy was taken on 4 July with a 10% premium loading for poor housekeeping. The insured's director calls daily and threatens to go to the press and the regulator if the claim is not settled within 15 days.
1. Identify the red flags and decide whether to investigate, settle, or repudiate now.
Read the worked answer
Investigate; do not settle or repudiate on day one. The red flags are cumulative: the policy was 29 days old when the fire occurred; the claim is 82% of the sum insured; the stock records were destroyed; the only bank statement shows ₹1.2 crore against a ₹4.9 crore claim; purchase invoices totalling ₹3.8 crore come from a supplier whose GST registration was cancelled before the invoice dates; the fire brigade found two seats of fire and diesel; the guard is missing; and the previous policy was cancelled for non-payment. Each has an innocent explanation, but together they justify a forensic investigation. Appoint an independent loss assessor and a forensic fire expert, preserve CCTV and the site, obtain the guard's statement, verify invoices with GST and e-way bills, and ask the bank for stock statements. The 15-day demand does not override the need for evidence. Do not make an interim payment that could be characterised as an admission.
2. What evidential standard applies and what would you need before repudiating for fraud?
Read the worked answer
Fraud must be pleaded and proved; in a civil claim the standard is the balance of probabilities, but because the allegation is serious the evidence must be strong and coherent. I would need a forensic finding on the seats of fire and diesel that excludes accidental causes; evidence linking the fire to the insured or its agents (access, motive, communications); proof that the invoices are false (supplier statement, GST records, no corresponding transport or payment); and a credible explanation for the missing guard and records. Financial distress, shown by bank statements, statutory dues and cancelled cover, supports motive but is not proof. If the evidence is strong, repudiate under the fraudulent-claim condition, citing the specific misrepresentations. If it is only suspicious, settle the genuine portion or ask for further information. Do not repudiate merely because records are missing if the insured can reconstruct stock from third-party sources.
3. How would you handle the director's threat to go to the press and the regulator, and the demand for settlement within 15 days?
Read the worked answer
Acknowledge the director's call in writing, confirm the claim reference and the investigator's details, and explain that the policy requires verification and that payment will follow once the assessment is complete. Do not promise a date. Keep a call log and put all substantive communication in writing. If a complaint is filed with the regulator or ombudsman, respond with the chronology and the specific information requested, not with the threat. Regulatory timelines are important, but they do not require payment of a suspected fraudulent claim; they require a reasoned decision. Escalate the threat to the insurer's legal and compliance teams and avoid any public comment. If the investigation clears the claim, pay promptly with interest where due; if it does not, give written reasons and the policy basis.