A shopping-center management company was absolved by the Santiago Court of Appeals of a fine of 30 UTM and compensation of $21,190,499 that the Second Local Police Court of Maipú had imposed for the theft of a vehicle in a complex it shares with a supermarket. The ruling, issued in Docket No. 2283-2023, rejected any imputation under Law No. 19,496 because the plaintiff did not prove that the car was in the mall's parking lot — and not in that of the adjacent supermarket.
For those who manage premises with parking lots shared among different operators, the ruling sets a prerequisite that the plaintiff must satisfy before any discussion about the duty of security of art. 15 A of the Consumer Law: proving the locative nexus.
What happened
A consumer reported the theft of her vehicle after visiting a shopping center managed by the defendant company. An insurance company, subrogated in the rights of the affected party, filed before the Second Local Police Court of Maipú an infringement complaint and a civil claim. Its argument: the mall's administrator had infringed art. 15 A of Law No. 19,496, which obliges those who offer parking to their clients to adopt adequate security measures for the vehicles.
The first-instance court upheld both actions. It ordered the mall to pay a fine of 30 UTM for infringement of arts. 3 letter d), 15 A, and 23 of Law No. 19,496, and additionally ordered compensation of $21,190,499 for consequential damage, equivalent to the value of the stolen vehicle.
The mall's management company appealed. Its defense did not question the duty of security in the abstract: it directly denied that the vehicle had ever been in its parking lot. According to the case record, the car had remained in the parking lot of the supermarket located in the same complex.
The Court ruled in its favor. The only element that situated the theft was the police report — and that report did not precisely identify the place where the car had been left. Two additional elements pointed toward the supermarket: the consumer had purchase receipts from the supermarket from that same afternoon, and upon noticing the theft she first went to the mall's guards, who referred her to the supermarket's security team, which was the one that handled the contact with the Carabineros police.
The Court was direct: "given such uncertainty, an elementary standard of certainty is not satisfied" that would allow the reported infringing conduct to be deemed demonstrated. Without that certainty, there is no infringement. Without an infringement, no compensation applies.
What it may mean for your company
Art. 15 A of Law No. 19,496 establishes a concrete obligation. Whoever makes parking available to their clients is liable for the security measures they adopt — or fail to adopt. That is not in dispute.
What this ruling specifies is the previous link. The rule: to get to analyzing whether or not that duty was met, you must first prove that the vehicle was effectively in the defendant's parking lot. That burden falls on the plaintiff. The police report by itself does not satisfy it when the premises have more than one operator with distinguishable spaces.
For companies that manage shopping centers with external anchors, supermarkets, or premises where different operators coexist, the implication is direct. The ambiguity about where the vehicle was does not operate automatically against the best-known operator of the complex. It operates against whoever failed to prove their assertions.
The point is no small matter where the consumer perceives no difference between the mall's parking lot and the supermarket's: they used the same access, the same ramp, the same signs. But if there is a physical or administrative delimitation between the spaces — and the plaintiff cannot establish in which of them they left the vehicle — the evidentiary standard is not satisfied.
There is another angle. For insurers that are subrogated in the consumer's rights and exercise these actions, the ruling is a warning about the construction of the case. The police report and the receipts from the complex's stores are not enough if the report does not specify the zone. The parking-entry record, the camera that captures the license plate at the access, or a witness who identifies the exact location are the elements that really sustain the claim. Without them, the uncertainty in premises with multiple operators is a real and enforceable defensive argument.
Could you prove today in which zone of your premises a vehicle that suffered an incident was located? Schedule a session to assess your access record and your exposure under art. 15 A.
What you can do
If you manage a shopping center or any premises with parking that shares physical space with another operator, the risk of this type of claim does not disappear. What this ruling clarifies is how to manage it. Three concrete actions:
- Map the spaces with ambiguous delimitation. Identify in your premises the zones where the consumer does not easily distinguish between operators — shared accesses, signage that does not differentiate, common ramps. That ambiguity is the ground where the litigation happens. Document the existing delimitation and assess whether it is visible, consistent, and sufficient for the purposes of a future proof.
- Implement traceability of entries and zones. A system for recording access with a time stamp and assigned zone — ticket, license-plate reader, camera with perimeter coverage — is the element that will define who is liable in the event of an incident. Without that record, the uncertainty about the vehicle's location can benefit whoever maintains that the car was not in their area. With it, the discussion changes axis.
- Design the incident-response protocol. Who receives the consumer, to whom they refer them, and who handles the contact with the Carabineros is documented and can be used as evidence of where the event occurred. In this case, the response flow — mall guards who refer to the supermarket — weighed in the court's analysis. A well-designed protocol, with personnel trained to follow it, has a direct impact on how the evidence is constructed in future litigation.
If any of these points raises questions — the delimitation of zones, the traceability of entries, or an ongoing claim —, a 30-minute diagnostic session is enough to size up your gaps. Schedule here.
If you need to review the exposure of your premises under art. 15 A of the Consumer Law, assess the security protocols in shared parking lots, or analyze the impact of this ruling on active claims, schedule a meeting with our team.
This content is informational and does not constitute legal advice