QWhat is the limit for an insurance broker? Choose one that will not cover it in the event of a claim. This is what happened to Mr. X: on December 30, 2018, his house was damaged by fire. On July 19, 2020, he requested that his insurer, the company Fidelidade Companhia de Seguros, compensate him for his damage (approximately 88,000 euros).
She opposes a refusal of guarantee, on the grounds that the frame of her house was made of wood, which is excluded by her contract, the general conditions of which specify: “Your housing contract does not apply to:
– castles, mansions, mansions;
– to buildings classified as historical monuments (…) ;
– bungalows, wooden chalets, houses with thatched roofs and wooden frame houses;
– to barges, caravans or mobile homes. »
She adds that this exclusion could not have escaped her, given her profession.
Mr. X objects that he could not have known that his house had a wooden frame, since this frame is, by definition, concealed. Moreover, he argues, it took the fire for two experts, commissioned one by the insurer, the other by him, to discover, during a survey of the ground floor walls, floor, and “after tearing off a plasterboard, a vapor barrier and a plywood panel”the presence of “wooden posts constituting the supporting structure of the walls”.
If the company’s expert considers that “the composition of the walls on the ground floor constitutes the very definition of those of a timber frame house”his contests this qualification, because “the ground floor was built in masonry and the exterior panel on the first floor was in fiber cement, a material qualified as hard”. He is pointing out that “Mr. X, when buying this villa, was unaware of the construction principle of the upper ground floor”, and that’“it was impossible, visually, to [le] to understand “.
Moreover, he adds, for the benefit of his colleague: “Even you, as a particularly qualified expert, have resorted to destructive means, to understand the constructive mode of this pavilion”.
Quarrel of Experts
Mr. X summons the company before the judicial court of Epinal (Vosges), and his lawyer, Mr.e Sylvie Leuvrey, maintains that the exclusion clause was neither “formal” neither “limited”, for lack of having defined what a timber frame house is. However, it argues, clauses which provide for exceptions to a contract and which are neither formal nor limited are deemed unenforceable against the insured.
You have 37.49% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.