November 20, 2020 – If an insured cannot conclusively prove that their building was damaged in a storm in accordance with the insurance conditions, their insurer is not obliged to pay. The Saarland Higher Regional Court ruled that on October 9, 2020 (5 U 61/19).
One of the homeowners had taken out storm damage insurance for her house. As usual, damage caused by a storm with a minimum wind force of eight Beaufort was insured.
Rotten chipboard – no storm damage
The woman alleged that a storm on October 29, 2017 peeled off the paneling on three chimneys on the roof of her building. She submitted a cost estimate to her building insurer for “a storm damage building project involving roofing and plumbing work” in the amount of more than 4,000 euros. The then commissioned an expert to inspect the damage.
He came to the conclusion that the firebacks would ultimately no longer have a hold on the severely rotten chipboard of the substructure. This state has persisted for a long time. Storm damage can therefore not be assumed.
ADVERTISING
–
–
Counter-opinion, but lack of evidence
The plaintiff then commissioned an expert who came to the opposite conclusion. The only problem was that although he claimed to regularly produce “architecture, real estate and expert reports”, he was not recognized as an expert. The insurer therefore refused to regulate the damage.
As a justification, the insurer cited, among other things, that even if the cladding should have come off due to a conditional storm, there was no insurance cover. Because according to the expert commissioned by him, the damage would have occurred even with a significantly lower wind force. The insured could not prove the opposite.
No evidence of storm
The Saarland Higher Regional Court followed this line of argument, as did the Saarbrücken Regional Court previously involved in the case. It rejected the insured’s appeal against the lower court’s judgment dismissing their action as unfounded.
According to the judges, the homeowner failed to provide evidence that her building was damaged in a storm of at least eight Beaufort force. You could not prove that on the day of the damage claimed by you at the scene of the incident such a storm raged.
No compensation despite the facilitation of evidence
Because such evidence cannot always be provided by the insured with the necessary certainty in practice, the insurance conditions provide for easier evidence. According to the Saarland Higher Regional Court, a storm damage event can then be assumed:
“If the policyholder proves that either (a) the movement of air in the vicinity of the insurance property has caused damage to buildings in perfect condition or to other items that are just as resistant, or that (b) the damage was caused by the perfect condition of the insured building or building, in which the insured property was or is structurally connected to the insured building, can only have been caused by a storm ”.
Buildings in the neighborhood not damaged
However, even information obtained from the German Weather Service did not indicate that there was a storm of at least eight Beaufort in the vicinity of the insured building on the day of the loss event. The plaintiff was also unable to prove any damage to buildings in its neighborhood.
Your building insurer is therefore not obliged to provide benefits. The judges saw no reason to allow an appeal against their decision.
Because of alleged storm damage, there are regular disputes between building owners and their insurers. The insured often go away empty-handed (VersicherungsJournal 23.3.2020, 20.10.2020).
– .
