How insurers evaluate a burglary
and theft claim — the evidence that decides.

Burglary and theft claims are among the most carefully scrutinised losses in Uganda's insurance market. The industry settled more than UGX 934 billion in claims during 2025 — equivalent to 46.2% of gross written premiums — and the regulator has pressed insurers to find reasons to pay genuine claims rather than reasons to resist them. Yet the same market contends with a persistent level of exaggerated and fraudulent claims. In that environment, one thing decides the outcome of a burglary claim: the quality of the evidence assembled around the loss.

The burden is not symmetrical. A burglary policy is built on strict conditions, and an assessor's task is to test the claim against those conditions and against the physical evidence — not to assume fraud, but to present what the evidence shows so the underwriter can decide.

What a burglary policy actually covers

Burglary cover is defined in most Ugandan wordings by the requirement of forcible and violent entry into or out of the insured premises. Theft without forcible entry — an employee removing stock over a series of evenings, a cleaner taking a laptop left in an unlocked office, a door left open overnight — is generally not a burglary loss at all. It belongs under a fidelity guarantee or crime cover. The distinction is the first test the assessor applies, and it is the reason the exact circumstances of entry matter more than the value of the missing items.

Most standard burglary conditions, in Uganda and elsewhere, also require the insured to report the incident to the police immediately, notify the insurer within twenty-four hours, and provide full particulars and any sworn declarations the insurer requires. Modeled wordings ask for this in writing and allow the insurer to call for an affidavit substantiating the claim.

The first 48 hours

What happens in the first two days after a break-in shapes the entire assessment. Consider the practical sequence an assessor expects to have been followed:

• Call the police on the spot — before tidying. The method of entry, the state of the door or lock, and any disturbance around the entry point are evidential before they are cosmetic. A premises that is cleaned and re-secured before police or an assessor arrive has quietly removed the most useful evidence.
• Notify the insurer within the policy's time limit — typically within 24 hours of discovery. Late notification gives the insurer grounds to question whether reasonable steps were taken, and almost always slows settlement even where cover is accepted.
• Secure any CCTV footage immediately — recording media is overwritten on a loop. An insurer will ask for the footage; an assessor will want to review it while it still exists.
• Keep the loss list separate from the tidy-up. Items moved, thrown away, or lent out after discovery should be noted honestly; an inflated or careless list is one of the quickest ways to invite a reduction or repudiation.

What the assessor documents on site

At the site visit, the assessor's report addresses four areas in sequence. The first is the point of entry: whether forcible entry occurred, how it was achieved, which locks or barriers were defeated, and whether any of the building's existing vulnerabilities also explain the loss. The second is the occupancy and activity record: who had keys, who was on site, when the premises were last secured, and whether the inventory count can be reconciled with trading records. The third is the security posture: alarms, guards, fencing and how they performed that night — a history of alarm failures or guard involvement is material. The fourth is the reported circumstances tested against the scene: whether the damage pattern and the account of what happened sit comfortably together.

Ugandan case law has repeatedly underlined why this detail matters. In Tight Security Ltd v Goldstar Insurance Co Ltd, the High Court accepted that losses arising from theft by the security company's own guards were outside the scope of the policies — the guards, not external criminals, had committed the losses. The assessor's report, which the parties had agreed to treat as binding, was central to that finding. In National Insurance Corporation Ltd v Kakugu, the insurer alleged connivance between an employee and the thief of two motor cycles; the court required proof, not suspicion, before accepting the insurer's repudiation. The lesson cuts both ways: evidence counts, and an assessor who records only what supports one side has failed the assignment.

Proving what was lost

The second half of a burglary assessment is quantum — and quantum in burglary claims is a records exercise, not a memory exercise. The loss list must be supported by stock sheets, purchase invoices, delivery notes, payment records and, where available, CCTV or staff statements that show the items were on the premises. Valuation is then approached at insured terms: usually replacement cost under burglary extensions or market value under standard property cover, on the basis of indemnity — the actual financial loss, with no element of profit.

This is where many genuine claims slow down. A retailer who keeps no running stock records cannot demonstrate that the televisions, phones or stock-in-trade listed on the claim form were actually in the shop on the night of the loss. The assessor can count the empty shelves, but the count only becomes a payable figure when it is anchored in records. The insurers' point here is fair: indemnity requires proof of what was lost and that it was yours, on your premises, when the loss occurred. Keeping those records current is, in effect, keeping the policy working.

Red flags — and what they mean for honest claims

The Insurance Appeals Tribunal has reported that more than 40% of what insurers pay out in claims may in fact be fraudulent — a figure its chairperson cited to argue that some insurers simultaneously use the prevalence of fraud as cover for resisting legitimate claims. The reality of the market sits between the two caricatures: fraud is present and costly, and genuine claims are often delayed by suspicion that is never converted into proof.

The industry's answer, discussed at the IRA's CEO breakfast meetings through 2025 and 2026, is a shared fraud database that lets insurers and assessors recognise repeated claimants, duplicated invoices and claim patterns across companies. That is a sound move. It means an honest claimant — one with a documented inventory, a consistent account and a genuine method of entry — has nothing to fear and everything to gain from evidence that speaks for itself. It also means the assessor's obligation is to distinguish, on evidence, the genuine claim from the inflated one, and to say so plainly without treating suspicion as a finding.

The timeline set by the regulator

The Insurance Regulatory Authority of Uganda's claims-handling guidelines set the cadence. The insurer should acknowledge a claim and acquire the necessary documents within three working days; the site visit or appointment of an assessor should happen within three working days of the claim being intimated; and the settlement offer, or communication of rejection, should be made within five working days of the insurer receiving the final adjustment report. Where a claim is declined, a claimant who believes the assessment or the rejection is wrong can escalate to the IRA's Complaints Bureau — and, ultimately, to the Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

Almost every delay in a burglary claim can be traced to one of three places: evidence that was destroyed or never recorded, a loss list that does not reconcile with records, or an assessment that does not tie the reported circumstances to what was actually found at the scene. Forward the right evidence, cooperate with the assessor's visit, and the process has a rhythm set by the regulator rather than by argument.