Who claim the damages caused by the power supply?

daños suministro electrico

Civil liability for breach of a contract to supply electricity Has heading exclusively against the energy distribution entity (with which the user did not have any business relationship) the, On the contrary, It can also be directed against the distributors ?

The issue has been resolved by the Judgment of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of 24 October 2016.

Is posed by the insurer has paid damages to the customer (in this case Allianz Seguros S.A.) when he claimed by them to the trading of electricity.

El cliente tenía contratado el suministro eléctrico con EGL Energía Iberia, S.L. (Axpo replaced by Iberia).

En diciembre de 2010 se produjo un siniestro de origen eléctrico en su empresa.

Dicho siniestro ocasionó daños materiales de diversa consideración sus equipos.

Endesa Energy, S.A.U (onwards, Endesa) y Axpo eran las empresas comercializadoras.

The customer had signed with Allianz insurance covering the damage to their facilities resulting damage of electrical origin.

According to the expert report provided by the plaintiff, at the time of the accident occur facilities insured entity were in perfect condition, It is the surge in supply supply -fluctuaciones- the cause that generated the damage to the various teams.

Damages were assessed in the sum of 8.190,18 €, Axpo entity corresponding to the amount 991,10 € Endesa entity and to the amount of 7.198,72 €.

Allianz customer indemnified by the amount of such damages, y se subrogó en su posición,al amparo del artículo 43 LCS , for the exercise of the rights and actions that by reason of the loss corresponded to that against the responsible entities.

The insurer filed suit against Endesa Energy, S.A. EGL Energy and Iberia, S.L. (Axpo replaced by Iberia).

Allianz it was a contractual liability, que no alcanzaba a la entidad distribuidora, a la que se consideraba ajena a la relación de suministro eléctrico, but the two entities trading demanded "Trading companies to be those bound to the service delivery according to the applicable standards, que están delimitados legalmente».

Endesa, claimed that lacked standing to be sued pues según el contrato suscrito con el cliente, the business relationship was subject to the Act 54/1997, standard care to which the distribution activities, transportation and sale of power distribution companies were competing and not to traders, being the distributor solely responsible (article 105 RD 1955/2000).

Axpo Ibérica, S.L.U, he defended himself in similar terms, alegando su falta de legitimación pasiva: el responsable de los sería la empresa distribuidora y no la comercializadora.

The Court of First Instance number 1 O Porrino, in Date 2 May 2013 , estimated demand filed by the legal representation of Allianz Seguros S.A., Iberia against EGL Energy, S.L. and Endesa Energy, S.A. y condenó a la primera al pago de de 991,10 euros, y a la segunda, to pay 7.198,72 euros, en ambos casos con intereses legales y sin condena en costas.

EGL Energía Iberia (subsequently replaced by Axpo Iberia S.L.), appealed and 3rd Section of the Provincial Court of Pontevedra, gave judgment dated 20 May 2014 dismissing it and confirming the judgment of the Court of First Instance.

So Axpo Iberia (replacing EGL) interpuso recurso de casación con apoyo en un único motivo: Infringement of Articles 45.1 and 41.1 (k) Act 54/1997.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, on the following grounds:

The principle of contractual good faith especially with regard to the provisions of Article 1258, It serves as elemento integrador para colmar las lagunas que pueda presentar la reglamentación contractual de las partes regarding the proper implementation and compliance with the signed contract (inter, Nos SSTS. 419/2015, of 20 July 254/2016, of 19 April ).

La comercializadora se obligó a suministrar la energía con unos estándares de calidad y continuidad (clause 1.1 contract) e incluso se reservó el derecho a revisar la adecuación de las instalaciones del cliente para que dicha energía pudiera ser suministrada (clause 1.4 contract). For his part, the customer agreed to such engagement confident that the signed contract could reasonably expect, in exchange for the stipulated price, that the marketing of its obligation to respond, not as a mere intermediary without direct link, but that met expectations "everything that could be expected" in a reasonable manner and in good faith, according to the nature and characteristics of the contract concluded.

Therefore, based on the principle of good faith, which also comes under Article 6102 of PECL (European principles of contract law) the marketer should respond.

Opposite, otherwise, would be a clear vulnerability and defenselessness in the exercise of the rights of the client that would be doomed, in every moment, to find out which company was the supply of energy without any contractual relationship with her. All, undiminished the right to repeat the action in his case the trader can exercise against the company electricity distribution.

Ultimately, if damaged by poor power supply, for the customer it is enough to claim his Marketer and you do not need to also sue the dealer. In his case, the marketer compensate the customer (or your insurance) podrá reclamar a su vez contra el distribuidor.

Consult your case now


Leave a Reply


Set as default language
 Edit Translation

Subscribe to receive a book PDF

Just for signing up receive via email the link to download the book "How to change lawyers" en format digital.
Sign up here

Sígueme en Twitter

Subscribe me

* This field is required