The Constitutional Court rejects the appeal for suspension introduced by Assuralia last February against the drought law.
The appeal for suspension introduced by Assuralia against the drought law is rejected. The Constitutional Court considers that the risk of serious and difficult to repair damage has not been demonstrated on the part of insurers.
The article in question seeks to interpret the law on natural disasters in relation to the issue of drought. The objective of the article is to allow victims of drought to be compensated more easily. Dry soil is affecting more and more homes in Belgium, which are cracking and collapsing.
To obtain the suspension of the article of law, the insurers had to demonstrate on their part a risk of serious and difficult to repair damage. In their appeal, the insurers report “serious financial risks which cannot be adequately compensated by existing reinsurance contracts”.
“The scope of potential losses is enormous. It probably concerns up to 25% of homes in Belgium“, evoke the insurers in their appeal. “It is the very existence of insurance companies which risks being compromised by the contested provision”, they believe.
The Constitutional Court did not follow this analysis. It considers that the risk of serious and difficult to repair damage has not been demonstrated. “The mere risk of suffering financial loss does not, in principle, constitute a risk of serious damage that is difficult to repair. In their application, insurance companies do not mention concrete and precise data from which it is sufficiently clear that the immediate application of the contested provision, pending the judgment on the action for annulment, would compromise their durability”, writes the Court in its judgment.
It remains for the Court to rule on the action for annulment.