Le passage of storms Ciaran and Domingos, between the 1er and on November 5, caused enormous damage: 1.3 billion euros, according to France Assureurs. Will duly insured individuals be compensated? This is not certain, because insurers require proof that the damage is due to “direct action » of the wind, and not to a pre-existing fragility: there is no question of the community paying for the repair of a roof that the insured has failed to maintain.
“Experts” play a decisive role, as the following cases show. On February 10, 2020, storm Ciara devastated Mr. The expert commissioned by Macif notes that “the pool cover flew away and passed over the house, causing damage to the roof…”. He calls for compensation.
On the other hand, after noticing the loosening of the tiles in the veranda, he states: “The tiling was laid by Mr. X more or less ten years ago, without double gluing, hence its detachment. » He concludes that“there is no causal link between the storm, the rains and the detachment”.
Mr. ” is not necessary “. As Macif refuses to compensate him, he takes legal action, requesting a legal expertise.
Veranda moved
It is only granted to him on appeal, October 20, 2022. The court of Douai (North) notes in fact that “the insurance expert’s assertion is not based on any technical reference.” She orders an expertise which must “establish the causal link between the storm and the disputed detachments”. Mr. “charged to the Public Treasury”.
We could multiply the examples: on January 13, 2022, the court of appeal of Rouen (Seine-Maritime) judges that “the elements produced » by an insured “are not sufficient to provide proof of a causal link between storm Egon of January 12, 2017 and the infiltration affecting its building.”
The expert from Texa, commissioned by the insurer, believes that these infiltrations are not linked to the climatic event, but to the lack of maintenance of the roof, which no longer fulfills its waterproofing function.
On November 12, 2019, The Court of Appeal of Reims (Marne) refuses to use the Macif storm guarantee, after the destruction, on July 27, 2013, of a veranda displaced by the wind. The legal expert considers that the collapse of the structure is due to its lack of anchoring in the ground, which results from installation carried out without respect for the rules of the art.
You have 35% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.