Two loaded shipping containers disappeared from a guarded yard - and now an insurer wants roughly $858,000 back from the security firm on duty. 

HDI Global Insurance Company filed suit against Universal Protection Services - the company behind Allied Universal Security Services - in California federal court on August 11, 2026. The complaint alleges that guards hired to protect a Mercedes-Benz facility failed to stop a cargo theft at the site. 

The case matters to claims professionals because it is a subrogation action - the process where an insurer, after paying its policyholder, steps into that customer's shoes to recover the money from whoever it holds responsible. According to the complaint, HDI insured cargo belonging to Mercedes-Benz USA and paid out after the loss. The filing states the insurer became "fully subrogated to the rights of its insured." 

Here is what the complaint alleges happened. Containers packed with automotive parts were delivered to a facility in Fontana, California, where guards were posted around the clock. The filing says that early on February 11, 2024, unknown individuals drove into the yard and took two loaded containers. The containers were later found. The cargo inside was not. 

The insurer's case rests on what the guards were contracted to do. The complaint says the security company's Post Orders - the standing instructions for guards at the site - required them, among other things, to be properly trained, monitor CCTV inside and outside the facility, log vehicles entering the yard, run regular fence and gate checks, keep daily activity reports, and control access. 

The complaint alleges the guards on duty fell short. According to the filing, they "were not properly trained, failed to monitor the surveillance CCTV, failed to detect the unauthorized tractors entering the yard at the Facility, failed to conduct proper patrols, failed to control access to the yard and Facility and otherwise failed to safeguard the property." 

HDI brings two claims: breach of contract and negligence. On both, the complaint estimates the loss at roughly $858,314, though it states the figure inconsistently - listing "$858,314,33" in its factual allegations and "$858,314.43" in its request for relief. 

For a claims audience, the takeaway is straightforward. When a contractor's written duties are spelled out in detail, those duties become the yardstick an insurer can use to measure performance - and to build a recovery case when a loss follows. 

The allegations have not been tested in court, and no court has ruled on the merits of the claims.