An owner wanted to claim compensation from the mason’s insurer under the ten-year guarantee insurance. The insurer only agreed to compensate material repairs and not moral damage. But the court ruled against him.
The victim of damage can demand from the insurer of the responsible the communication of the content of the contract, indicated the Court of Cassation. It is not up to it to prove that the person responsible for a fault or an accident was indeed insured since, not having knowledge of the specific clauses of the contract, it cannot prove its content.
It is always possible, for the victim, to go directly to the insurer of the person responsible for obtaining compensation, had also recalled the Court of Cassation on December 16.
This time it was a dispute related to the acquisition of a house that turned out to be poorly built. The new owner wanted to claim compensation from the mason’s insurer under the ten-year guarantee insurance that he was required to take out.
It was up to the insurer to communicate the contract
But this insurer only agreed to compensate material repairs and not moral damage or relocation and temporary removal costs. The owner who claims does not prove that the mason’s insurance policy covered this risk, he said. However, it is up to anyone who invokes a guarantee that is more extensive than the basic guarantee to prove that it exists.
The judges did not endorse this argument. If the law, in this matter, only obliged the company to insure against material defects, it was possible that it had chosen a more extensive contract and it was up to the insurer to communicate the contract in order to that the extent of the warranty can be verified. Refusing, not proving the absence of guarantee, he had to take charge of these particular damages, concluded the Court.
(Cass. Civil 3, 2.3.2022, E 20-22.486).