Consumer complaint received 2019-08-05 00:00:00
Product: Credit card or prepaid card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Add-on products and services
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
I have a Costco Citibank credit card which currently has a theft and damage protection benefit for purchases made on the card. On XX/XX/XXXX of this year a police report was filed in reference to XXXX XXXX  that were stolen out of a vehicle. The XXXX were in the center storage console of the vehicle out of plain view and the vehicle was parked in my carport at my residence. I filed a claim with Citibank card benefits for the theft of the XXXX and provided the proper documentation to them including the police report as well as a receipt showing the purchase was made using my Costco Citibank card. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received written notification that my claim request was denied for the following reason, " The item was not reasonably cared for. '' The letter further stated that my claim was denied per the Terms and Conditions, the item was not reasonably cared for to prevent the damage or theft the loss is ineligible for coverage. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted the Citi Card Benefits Administration to dispute the decision for my claim, or at the very least get further clarification on why it was denied. I ended up speaking to a supervisor within the card benefits department who was able to review my claim, the police report, and the adjuster 's notes. The supervisor advised after reading all of the documentation that the claim was still going to be denied. The supervisor and the adjuster cited a specific sentence in the narrative of the police report as the reasoning why the claim was denied. The sentence they are referring to is the following " To XXXX 's knowledge, she was unsure if the vehicle was locked, but there was no forced entry into the vehicle seen. '' Based off of that sentence an assumption was made that the vehicle was unlocked. I was then told based off of that assumption, a vehicle left unlocked is not reasonably caring for an item to prevent the theft of that item. 

After hearing their reasoning for the decision, I contested the denial of my claim for the following two reasons. 

The first being the assumption made based off of the sentence in the police report that the vehicle was left unlocked. The report never documents with one hundred percent certainty that the vehicle was unlocked. The sentence states the owner of the vehicle was unsure if the vehicle was locked and says officers did not observe any signs of forced entry. It is fully possible the vehicle was locked and whoever gained entry into the vehicle was able to do so with burglary tools that did not leave any visible damage. Just because officers did not observe signs of forced entry does not mean forced entry was not made. 

The second reason is a counter argument to the assumption the vehicle was left unlocked. Based on the assumption the vehicle was left unlocked, the verbiage in the Terms and Conditions states the item must be reasonably cared for. I reviewed a copy of the Terms and Conditions online from a link that was provided to me by the supervisor in the card benefits department. The part that addresses my particular claim stated the following " Coverage does not apply to any item if its damaged or stolen under these conditions : The item was not reasonably cared for to prevent the damage or theft '' The Terms and Conditions do not elaborate any further as to what reasonably caring for an item is. Once again going off of the assumption the vehicle was left unlocked, it was still parked in my carport at my own residence. A reasonable person would assume a higher level of privacy and security at their own home on private property. State and federal laws would also coincide with the thought of a higher expectation of privacy and security where one resides. 

The definition of theft per state law in Arizona is as follows ARS 13-1802 : A. A person commits theft if, without lawful authority, the person knowingly : 1. Controls property of another with the intent to deprive the other person of such property Ironically, a reasonable person would make the argument that it is actually quite unreasonable that the person who stole the XXXX could potentially serve prison time for the theft of the property, and the victim who had property stolen from them would have their theft protection claim denied. 

Needless to say, I was told by the supervisor the decision to deny my claim stood and nothing else was going to be done. I was able to speak to the adjuster who initially made the decision to deny my claim. After explaining my reasoning, she choose to stand by her initial decision still, but said my claim would be reviewed by their legal department. The adjuster said I would be contacted in 24-48 hours with a decision. I spoke to the adjuster on Sunday XX/XX/XXXX and today is Monday XX/XX/XXXX and I still have not heard anything from Citibank. 

I did speak to a customer service representative in the HR department to cancel my card and explained my reasoning to this person as to why I was going to cancel my card. Ironically, after providing the previously listed experience above to him he was very apologetic and agreed that the incident was the very definition of theft and should be covered. He offered to give me additional credit for my cash back rewards, but he could not do it for the amount of the XXXX  unfortunately. 

It is very discouraging to have to go through so much effort for a card protection benefit when that company does not want to protect its customers.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief