Burglary with open shutters: what compensation?
[ad_1]
LPolicyholders do not like exclusion clauses, because they deprive them of the benefit of the guarantees they have thought of subscribing to. But when the exclusion clause of a contract itself contains an exclusion, they may have cause for celebration, as the following case shows.
In February 2015, the X spouses were away from their house for three days, without having closed the shutters of their room, where there were valuable jewels. Burglars climb onto the balcony, break a window, and unlock the patio door with the key inside. Once inside the room, they break through a safe which is fixed to the floor, inside a cupboard. They leave with its contents.
The X lodge a complaint with the gendarmerie, and ask their insurer, the Regional Agricultural Mutual Insurance Fund (Crama, member of Groupama), to compensate them, up to 70,000 euros, the ceiling of their guarantee. The insurer considers that the amount of the stolen objects only amounts to some 52,000 euros, but refuses to pay it when he learns that the shutters of the X have remained open. Its general conditions provide that the insured must close the shutters in the event of absence of more than twenty-four hours. When this ” preventative measure » is not respected, an exclusion clause comes into play.
” Determination “
The X assign the Crama before the tribunal de grande instance of Rennes, but the latter validates its refusal of guarantee, considering that the X “took a risk that exceeded that insured”. The X’s appeal. The magistrates examining their case observe that the disputed exclusion clause (“thefts and damage occurring when preventive measures have not been observed are not guaranteed…”) itself contains an exception (” except (…) if non-compliance with these measures could not have had an impact on the realization of the damages”).
They consider that this exception must come into play: closing the shutters would, according to them, have had no effect on the burglary, given the ” determination “ thieves, who have dared to break into a safe – and who would no doubt have hesitated to force open the shutters. They condemn the Crama to pay the 52,000 euros, July 3, 2019.
The insurer appealed in cassation, and obtained, June 17, 2021. the censure of this decision, for procedural reasons: the magistrates should not have held this reasoning, whereas the X had not asked them to do so.
A new trial therefore took place on March 2, 2022, before the Rennes court, composed differently. The Xs ensure, on their own this time, that closing their shutters would not have deterred the burglars from acting, when the latter were equipped with tools allowing them to break double glazing and a safe. They claim that the exception clause must come into play. La Crama replies that it cannot enforce such a clause, without “distort” the contract, since this provides for an exclusion in the event of non-closure of the shutters.
What the Court of Appeal refutes, May 18 (2022) : “The Crama cannot claim that to retain this exception, which it itself provided, consists in distorting the exclusion clause and emptying this clause of its substance, the exception being assessed with regard only to the particular circumstances of the ‘species…’. It orders the insurer to guarantee the theft.
[ad_2]
Source link
