Home Insurance and Burglary Claims Compensation
When someone suffers a burglary at home, their first reaction is often to turn to their insurance company for the compensation promised under their policy.
However, the process is not always straightforward: disputes frequently arise over the proof of ownership of stolen items, their market value, and whether the claim actually falls within the scope of coverage.
The policyholder and the “Multi-Risk Home & Family” insurance
The claimant had taken out a “Multi-Risk Home & Family” insurance policy, valid from September 2015 to September 2016. Among other risks, it covered burglary and robbery within the insured’s residence.
On July 20, 2016, he suffered a burglary at his home. The thieves stole luxury watches, jewelry, and cash, worth approximately €50,000. The insured promptly reported the incident to both the police and his insurance company.
The insurer’s objections
Despite this, the insurer denied the claim, arguing that:
there was no conclusive proof of ownership of the stolen property;
the documents produced (mostly copies of certificates) lacked sufficient evidentiary value;
therefore, no payment obligation had arisen.
Legal Action Brought by the Policyholder
The claim before the Court
Frustrated by the insurer’s refusal, the policyholder filed a lawsuit, asking the Court to order the company to pay €50,000, or any other amount determined by the Court, plus interest and legal fees.
The insurer’s defense
The insurance company reiterated that the claimant had not discharged the burden of proof required to trigger compensation under the policy.
The Legal Framework: Burden of Proof in Insurance Disputes
General rule under Italian law
Article 1218 of the Italian Civil Code provides that a claimant seeking contractual performance must prove the source of their right and allege non-performance by the other party. The burden then shifts to the defendant (here, the insurer) to demonstrate facts that exclude or extinguish liability.
Supreme Court case law
Italian Supreme Court rulings (e.g., Cass. 1558/2018, Cass. 30656/2017) have clarified that:
the insured must prove that the event falls within the category of risks covered by the policy;
the insurer must prove any exclusions or limitations that prevent coverage (e.g., fraud, gross negligence, or contractual exclusions).
Evidence Submitted in Court
Police report and certificates
The claimant produced a police report filed immediately after the burglary, along with warranty certificates for the stolen watches and jewelry.
Witness testimony
Two witnesses testified, confirming that the claimant owned the items in question and stored them in his home, specifically in the bedroom wardrobe.
Court-appointed expert (CTU)
The judge appointed a technical expert (CTU) to assess the claim. The expert concluded that:
the documents provided by the policyholder were authentic and reliable;
based on 2016 market values, the stolen items were worth around €30,000;
after applying the contractual deductible of 10%, the compensation due fell within the policy’s maximum coverage limit.
The Court’s Judgment
Partial acceptance of the claim
The Court found the claimant’s request partially justified:
the burglary was clearly covered under the policy;
the evidence was sufficient to prove both possession and loss of the items;
the insurer had failed to prove any valid ground for exclusion.
Compensation awarded
The Court ordered the insurer to pay the claimant €30,000, plus legal interest, rejecting the original demand for €50,000 given the contractual coverage limit.
Legal costs
Court costs were partially shared: the Court compensated 50% of the legal expenses due to the reduction in the amount awarded, with the remaining 50% charged to the insurer.
Key Takeaways from the Decision
Importance of proving ownership
The ruling highlights a crucial point: in burglary insurance claims, the insured must be able to prove ownership and possession of the stolen goods. Invoices, receipts, warranty certificates, and even photographs can be decisive.
Value of expert evidence
The court-appointed expert report played a central role in the outcome. Independent valuation can be critical in disputes where insurers challenge the authenticity or value of claimed losses.
Contractual limits matter
Even if the actual loss exceeds the insured’s estimate, compensation cannot exceed the policy limit. In this case, although the claimant argued damages of €50,000, the maximum payout under the policy was €30,000.
Practical Advice for Policyholders
To protect themselves and avoid disputes, policyholders should:
carefully store receipts, invoices, and certificates for valuable items;
keep an updated photographic inventory of valuables kept at home;
check coverage limits and exclusions in their insurance contracts;
promptly notify both the police and the insurer in case of burglary;
seek guidance from an insurance law attorney if the insurer denies or delays payment.
This judgment shows that, even when an insurance company challenges a burglary claim, a diligent policyholder can obtain justice and fair compensation—although always within the contractual limits of coverage.
At Buccilli Law Firm, we assist clients facing disputes with their insurers in Italy, providing expertise in insurance claims, policy interpretation, and civil litigation.
