THEhen the judge is called upon to settle a consumer dispute, he must come to the aid of the weaker party – the consumer. He must report “ systematically », Ie even if the litigant does not ask him to do so, the irregularities or unfair terms which may appear in the contract binding him to the professional, and which may result in the latter being null and void.
In other types of cases, such as compensation for a burglary, the judge cannot help one of the parties without first having listened to the grievances of the other, failing which he violates the adversarial principle. This is what the following case reminds us of.
On Saturday February 14, 2015, husband and wife X were absent from their house, located at a place called La Morinais, in Betton (Ille-et-Vilaine). They plan to come back the same day, but the person with whom they have an appointment postpones it until the next day, so that they do not return until Monday, February 16. They then find that they have been burgled. The patio door to their bedroom on the first floor was smashed; their safe was broken into, and its contents robbed.
Valuable jewelry
The Xs file a complaint with the gendarmerie, then ask their insurer, Groupama, to compensate them. The insurer refuses it, reproaching them for not having closed the shutters, as prescribed by its general conditions, for any absence of more than twenty-four hours. The Rennes tribunal de grande instance ruled in his favor on July 3, 2019: “By leaving for more than twenty-four hours on a weekend, failing to close the shutters of the room where the safe containing valuable jewelry is stored, [les X] have taken a risk that exceeds that insured by [la société Groupama], so that the latter is justified in refusing to guarantee it … “
The X appeal, and the Rennes court comes to their aid, July 3, 2019. It is its own responsibility, that is to say without their having informed it, that the general conditions of the insurer contain the following exception clause: “The theft and damage which has occurred when the preventive measures have not been observed are not guaranteed, except in cases of force majeure or if the non-compliance with these measures could not have had an impact on the achievement of the damage. “
“Determination”
The court considers that this clause must play, “With regard to the determination of the perpetrator (s) of this burglary, characterized by the operating mode – forced safe ”. She judges “Patent that the mere closing of the shutters could not have dissuaded him or them, and would therefore have had no impact on the realization of the damage suffered by the insured”. In other words, if the burglars dared to force a safe, they would have dared to force shutters. The court reversed the judgment, and ordered Groupama to pay for the damage suffered by the spouses.
You have 21.73% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.