lThe owner of a house that cracked after an episode of intense drought can only obtain compensation for his damages from an insurer under two main conditions: that his municipality has been, a posteriori, by inter-ministerial decree, declared 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 rejects its guarantee, the owner has a certain period to act against him: five years, for contracts concluded since a law of December 28, 2021, two years before. But what is the starting point of this term?
Since December 15, 1993, jurisprudence considers that this is the date of publication of the decree Official Gazette. Can this date be postponed when the damage is discovered later? This is the question raised by the following case.
On June 20, 2014, Mr. and M.me X buy a house in Haute-Garonne (in Plaisance-du-Touch), for the amount 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 sheriff also notices a “lack of planimetry” of the land, which in particular prevents the closure of a locker room.
The X then learned that the town had been recognized as being in a state of natural disaster, since 1Ahem April 2011 to June 30, 2011, by decree published on August 2, 2012. But, since the cracks were not detectable, its sellers, the Y, did not make a disaster declaration.
On April 27, 2015, they requested in a summary procedure the appointment of an expert, after having summoned the Y, which called its then insurer, Matmut, as guarantee. Indeed, the guarantee for damage does not fall on the company that insures the property when the damage is revealed, but on the one that insures it during the period covered by the decree, as ruled by the Court of Cassation.
There is no blame
A year later, the expert says that the 2011 drought “it is the only cause of the disorders”but that the cracks “they were hidden from view, due to the vegetation that covered the walls”, that exonerates sellers of any blame. Sets the cost of repairs at 84,300 euros.
Matmut refuses to pay this sum according to article L 114-1 (2°) of the insurance code, “ in case of a disaster, the deadline does not run ” that from the day the interested parties became aware of it. Or, in their case, the day in July 2014 when the cracks were discovered. They maintain that their summons of April 27, 2015 was presented within the two-year period.
You have 27.73% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
