Court of First Instance No. 6 of Majadahonda has just ordered MAPFRE SEGUROS, in a judgment notified this December, to compensate a homeowner in the sum of €51,401.93, plus interest and legal costs.
The reason for the ruling, according to the presiding judge, is that the defects in the detached house in question (cracks caused by differential settlement of the foundations and excessive deflection of the floor slabs, due to incorrectly sized beams) amount to structural damage, for which the 10-year structural insurance (seguro decenal) must answer (in this case, Mapfre), even though the policy was not taken out by the homeowner but by the developer that promoted the works. As the home is within its first 10 years, the 10-year structural insurance is obliged to answer for and pay compensation for the structural damage the home presents.
Article 19.1.c) of the LOE provides that the developer must guarantee, by means of material damage insurance for ten years, compensation for the material damage caused to the building by defects originating in or affecting the foundations, columns, beams, floor slabs, load-bearing walls or other structural elements, and which directly compromise the mechanical strength and stability of the building. Consequently, by virtue of that obligation, the insurer must answer under its obligations set out in articles 18 et seq. of Law 50/1980 of 8 October on Insurance Contracts.
The judge lists no fewer than 6 reasons for upholding the claim in full: the fact that the claimant’s expert visited the home more times than the insurer’s expert; the checks carried out and the crack monitors installed by the former; his own qualifications and professional experience; the clearly structural nature of the damage detected; the absence of a sound repair proposal from the insurer; the thoroughness and precision of both the claim and the claimant’s expert report, etc.
Mapfre is therefore ordered to pay in full the damage valuation costed by the claimant, €51,401.93, plus the interest provided for in article 20 of the Insurance Contracts Act (which accrues from the date of the out-of-court formal demand), and the insurer must also bear the legal costs incurred by the injured party at this instance.
The judgment has been enthusiastically welcomed by the claimant homeowner, and it is so emphatic, clear and forceful that the insurer has announced that it will not appeal, as doing so would increase its costs of the proceedings, thereby avoiding the risk of a more than likely further order to pay legal costs at second instance.
The claim was signed by one of the lawyers of DPCON SL, the firm specialising in construction defect claims.
If you have a similar problem, contact us. DPcon Reclamación Defectos Construcción.
Any questions?