Car theft at a supermarket parking lot - Evidence

In a recent ruling of August 9, 2004, Tribunal B of the Commercial Court of Appeal has reaffirmed its position that the insured’s report to the police is insufficient to evidence the robbery of a vehicle at a supermarket parking lot.

In re: “Omega Coop. de Seguros Ltd. c/ Carrefour Argentina S.A. s/ ordinario”, the plaintiff insurer, subrogated in the rights of its insured, sought to recover the sums paid to the latter under a motor insurance policy as a consequence of the theft of a car occurred at the supermarket parking lot.

The first instance judgment had admitted the claim on the basis that the theft of the car was evidenced with the police report made by the insured. In consequence the judge held the supermarket liable, as owner of the parking lot.

At the appellate level the defendant, represented by Marval, O’Farrell & Mairal, argued that the police report was not evidence enough of the robbery. The Court of Appeal, on the basis of the appellant’s arguments held that the police report of the owner of the vehicle, insured under the motor policy, was no sufficient evidence of the facts, since it was a unilateral statement made by the allegedly aggrieved party.

Consequently the Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint against Carrefour Argentina S.A. because the plaintiff had not proved the facts on which it had based its claim.