Lhe owner of a house which cracked after an episode of intense drought can only obtain compensation for his damage from an insurer under two main conditions: that his municipality has been, a posteriori, by interministerial decree, recognized in a state of natural disaster during the episode; that an expert admitted that the latter constituted “the determining cause” of the damage.
If they are met, but the insurer refuses its guarantee, the owner has a certain period of time to take action against it – five years, for contracts concluded since a law of December 28, 2021, two years , previously. But what is the starting point of this deadline?
Since December 15, 1993, case law considers that this is the date of publication of the decree Official Journal. Can this date be postponed, when the damage is only discovered later? This is the question posed by the following case.
Decryption | Article reserved for our subscribers Houses cracked by drought better insured?
Read later
On June 20, 2014, Mr. and M.me X buy a house in Haute-Garonne (in Plaisance-du-Touch), for the sum of 270,000 euros. After removing the ivy and brambles that covered the exterior walls, they discovered stepped microcracks, symptomatic of deterioration due to drought. A bailiff also notices a “lack of planimetry” of the ground, which prevents in particular the closing of a dressing room.
The X then learned that the town had been recognized as in a state of natural disaster, from 1is April 2011 to June 30, 2011, by decree published on August 2, 2012. But, as the cracks were not detectable, their sellers, the Y, did not make a disaster declaration.
In practice | Article reserved for our subscribers Insurance and drought: what to do if you notice cracks in your house?
Read later
On April 27, 2015, they requested in summary proceedings the appointment of an expert, after having summoned the Y, who called in guarantee their insurer at the time, Matmut. In fact, the guarantee of the loss does not fall on the company which insures the property when the damage is revealed, but on the one which insured it during the period covered by the decree, as ruled by the Court of Cassation.
No fault
A year later, the expert says that the drought of 2011 “is the sole cause of the disorders”more than the cracks “were hidden from view, due to the vegetation covering the walls”, which exonerates the sellers from any fault. It sets the cost of repairs at 84,300 euros.
Matmut refuses to pay this sum to the article L 114-1 (2°) of the insurance code, « in case of disaster,” the deadline does not run « that from the day the interested parties became aware of it. Or, in their case, on the day in July 2014 when they discovered the cracks. They argue that their summons of April 27, 2015 was filed within the two-year deadline.
You have 27.73% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
Related News :