The Shahriar Warehouse Fire: Accelerant, a Phantom Supplier and a Doubled Sum Insured
A general warehouse in Shahriar, insured for fire and allied perils with 80 billion IRR on stock (imported polymer granules) and 15 billion on the building, reported a total loss by fire at 03:10 on 14 Bahman. The fire service report states the fire was confined to two stacks, that the sprinkler system had been shut off at the mains 'for repair' for 11 days, and that a strong smell of accelerant was noted. The claim file contains purchase invoices from a supplier whose registration number does not exist and whose bank account was opened three weeks before the fire. The stock ledger shows 1,850 tonnes in store, while the insurer's risk engineer, on his last survey five months earlier, recorded a maximum storage capacity of 900 tonnes. The sum insured on stock was increased from 40 billion to 80 billion 24 days before the loss and the additional premium was paid. The building is mortgaged to Bank Melli, which has notified its interest. The insured's manager declined to be interviewed and has since travelled abroad.
1. List the fraud indicators, and set out the investigation you would commission before forming any view on liability.
Read the worked answer
Indicators.
- Accelerant odour and a fire confined to two stacks at 03:10, inconsistent with a spontaneous or electrical origin.
- Sprinklers shut at the mains for 11 days over the very period in which the fire occurred.
- Invoices from a supplier with no registration and a bank account three weeks old – a classic fabricated-supply pattern.
- 1,850 tonnes claimed against a surveyed maximum capacity of 900 tonnes: the physical stock cannot have existed as declared.
- A 100% increase in the stock sum insured 24 days before the loss.
- Manager unavailable, refuses interview, travels abroad.
- Probable financial motive – check the mortgage position, bank statements and any notice of default.
Investigation plan.
- Obtain the full fire service report and the origin-and-cause analysis; commission an independent forensic laboratory to test samples for accelerant residues and to report on the burn pattern.
- Secure the site and the CCTV; take witness statements from security staff, night shift and neighbours before memories fade.
- Verify the supplier: registration extract, bank account opening, delivery notes, weighbridge tickets, customs declarations for imported granules, and VAT/stock turnover records.
- Reconcile the stock ledger with purchases, sales, and physical residue; a stock reconstruction by an accountant is usually decisive.
- Obtain the sprinkler maintenance contractor's job sheets and the shutdown notice.
- Check claims history and any previous insurance declined or cancelled.
- Interview the insured with a written record; do not accuse.
Standard and process. Keep a chain of custody for every sample and document; do not repudiate on suspicion. Issue a reservation-of-rights letter, extend time limits where the wording permits, and give the insured an opportunity to explain the discrepancies before any decision is taken.
2. If the fraud is established, what can the insurer do about the claim and about the increased sum insured, and how does the bank's mortgage affect the answer?
Read the worked answer
Basis for declining.
Two routes, and the wording should be checked before choosing: (i) the fraudulent-claim condition – the usual wording makes a claim that is in any respect fraudulent forfeit all benefit under the policy, not merely the exaggerated part; (ii) misrepresentation/non-disclosure – the deliberate doubling of the sum insured on a false stock figure and the fabricated invoices go to the risk and the terms and may support avoidance.
Proof. The insurer bears the burden of proving fraud. In a civil context that means the balance of probabilities, supported by documents; a criminal complaint requires a higher standard. The claim file must stand on the forensic and accounting evidence, not on the manager's absence.
The increased sum insured. If the increase was obtained on false information, the insurer may seek to avoid the endorsement from its inception and to treat the policy as it stood at 40bn – but this is a contractual argument to be decided on the wording and legal advice, not by the adjuster alone. Do not confuse it with the average calculation; average is a separate mechanical consequence if the sum insured is inadequate.
The mortgagee. If the policy contains a standard mortgagee clause, Bank Melli's interest is protected independently of the mortgagor's misconduct: the insurer may pay the bank its interest, and is subrogated to the bank's rights. If there is no such clause, the bank's position is governed by the mortgage documents and Iranian law, and the insurer should not pay the mortgagor while the bank has notified an interest. Take legal advice before releasing any building indemnity to the insured.
Practical order. Decline on the stock claim, reserve on the building claim pending the origin report, notify the bank, and make no payment until the position on the building damage is separately established.
3. The insured argues that the sprinkler shutdown is irrelevant because the fire was deliberately set by a third party. How does the protective-systems condition operate here?
Read the worked answer
Identify the type of condition. Three possibilities, with very different consequences:
- A warranty or condition precedent – the policy may require protective systems to be maintained in full operation, with any shutdown notified to the insurer. Breach defeats the claim whether or not it caused or worsened the loss.
- A condition with a causation test – the insurer may reduce the claim to the extent the loss was increased by the failure.
- A mere duty to take reasonable precautions – breach requires recklessness, not mere negligence.
Read the wording before forming a view; do not assume the harshest version applies.
Does the third-party-arson argument help the insured? Only partly. If a third party deliberately set the fire, the insured still must show that it complied with its protective-systems obligations. An 11-day shutdown of a sprinkler main without notification is a serious breach; whether it is fatal or merely a reduction depends on clause type and on whether the fire would have been contained. A fire spread analysis by a fire protection engineer is the right evidence: what would the sprinkler have done to a fire in two stacks at 03:10?
Reduction rather than denial. If the evidence shows the fire would have been limited to one stack or extinguished, the insurer may reduce the claim by the proportion of the loss attributable to the increased damage. That is a defensible middle position where the clause is not a condition precedent.
Other avenues. The maintenance contractor who left the system isolated may be liable; preserve subrogation. Check whether the insurer's own risk-improvement recommendations had been issued and ignored – relevant to the reasonable-precautions argument but not decisive.