An element of home equipment which is not important enough to be qualified as a work is no longer covered by the obligatory ten-year guarantee from its manufacturer.
The Court of Cassation abandoned this case law which it had put in place in June 2017, thinking that consumers or owners of buildings would be better protected because they would be more easily compensated. This was not the case, she found, and this system actually complicated the procedures.
Also, she now judges, the elements of equipment, even if their failure creates significant damage or renders the house unusable, will no longer be covered by the manufacturer’s compulsory and automatic ten-year insurance, but by the simple principle of his civil liability.
Housing: the ten-year guarantee is never extended
This compensation through the civil liability of the contractor, which can be invoked for five years on the condition of proving fault and damage, is much more uncertain for the victim than the automatic ten-year guarantee.
To judge in this way, the Court of Cassation ruled on a case of fire caused by a new insert, which had destroyed the house. The insert in an existing chimney, without masonry work or work on the structural work of the building, is not a work but an element of equipment and, even if it caused the destruction of the house, the Damage is therefore no longer guaranteed by the manufacturer’s ten-year insurance.
The victims are left to invoke the fault of the installer, linked to their damage, and hope that he will be well insured. The work is not precisely defined by law but means the carrying out of work of a certain importance, relating to a real estate material creation and capable of functioning by itself.
(Cass. Civ 3, 21.3.2024, Z 22-18.694).
Reproduction forbidden.