Difference between multi-household insurance and first risk insurance

seguro hogar

What is the difference between first risk insurance and multi-household insurance? 

 Consult your case now

In first risk insurance,  insured and insurer agree on the amount to be indemnified in the event of a claim, con independencia del valor real del bien. Si no se trata de un seguroa primer riesgose deberá probar la preexistencia de los bienes asegurados y su valor. Así en el artículo 38 LCS stands  sets:

"The insured has the obligation to prove the pre-existence of the stolen objects, and only in cases where such proof is not reasonably possible, or no more can be demanded, the content of the policy will constitute a presumption in favor of the insured. ”

A multi-risk home insurance covers most of the risks that can occur in a home, comprising continent, contenido y responsabilidad civil. Si no se ha contratado específicamente la modalidada primer riesgo”, se puede producir la situación de “infraseguro”:  The compensation will be reduced in the same proportion in which the declared risk was undervalued (and therefore the premium paid) con relación a la realidad. Se puede ver más información sobre el “infraseguro” en esta entrada.

Occasionally, The wording of the general conditions can lead to confusion about the type of insurance policy that is being contracted. Section 1 of the Provincial Court of Lugo resolved one of these cases in a judgment on 10 March 2020, with Resolution No. 108/2020. El cliente entendía que había contratado un seguroa primer riesgopero tenía un seguro de hogar ordinario. Desestimó el recurso de apelación interpuesto por ASEGURADORA ZURICH, and partially estimated the appeal filed by the insured, D. Torcuato. Condemned ZURICH to pay compensation, 7.000 € for the theft of jewelry and collections at your home.

Fact background,,es,Juan Alberto and Paulina filed suit against FTA,,es,Asset Securitization Fund,,es,requesting the declaration of nullity for abusive of the floor and ceiling clauses contained in the novation contract of the mortgage loan of,,es,with the corresponding refund of amounts unduly collected,,es,The Securitization Fund Management Company,,es,Beech,,es,acting on behalf of FTA, he responded to said claim alleging that he lacked passive legitimacy since the entity had no legal personality and that it constituted only a private and open fund and that therefore the passive legitimization corresponded to BBVA as successor of Catalunya Banc that was the Company fund constituent,,es

D. Torcuato suffered a robbery at his home on 16 September 2016. Jewelry and collections were stolen. The door lock was damaged and he had to change it.

The 25 May 2017 filed a lawsuit against ZURICH. Claimed 15.578,12 €. Alternative, 14.510 € plus the interests of the art. 20 LCS, for compensation for theft, under the comfort multi-insurance modality insurance contract that I had contracted.

Primera Instancia

The Court of First Instance and Instruction No. 1 de Chantada sentenced the 7 May 2017, estimating part application filed by D. Torcuato. Condemned ZURICH to indemnify D. Torcuato with 1.700 € plus the interests of the art. 20 LCS.

Provincial Court

An appeal was filed by D. Torcuato and by ZURICH.

The reasons for D's appeal. Torcuato were two:

first plea: infringement of Article 218.1 LECivil. He understood that the pronouncement had been omitted due to the type of theft insurance contracted., first risk insurance.

second reason: infringement of Article 28 LCS. He alleged that the parties had agreed on the amount of compensation in the event of a robbery.

The reason for ZURICH's appeal was the existence of a contradiction in the judgment handed down in the first instance regarding the accreditation of the theft of jewelry and collections for the amount of 14.150 €. Section dismissed.

Regarding the appeal filed by the plaintiff, the first reason was dismissed, there being no infringement of art. 217 LECivil, nor the arts. 2, 10 and 38 LCS.

Section considered "Nothing was said in the particular conditions of the policy contracted on the existence of first-risk insurance". It was a multihome insurance contract, which included the theft and the robbery of jewels and collections for an insured sum of 25% Of content, with a maximum of 30.000 €.

“(…) The mention made in the general conditions of first risk insurance, cannot lead to the conclusion that this type of insurance has been contracted, from the moment that in the particular conditions no mention is made in this sense, and that said general condition is incorporated into numerous insurance contracts. (…)”

Having taken out first-risk insurance, the plaintiff would have been asked for an inventory of the jewelry.

Multi-home insurance is a form of insurance that «Characterized according to TS jurisprudence“ by the existence of a plurality of interests insured in a single insurance, in which establishes a sum insured that tries to cover the highest value”» (SSTS 05/11/1999 and 29/10/2004).

Article 38 LCS states that "The insured has the obligation to prove the pre-existence of the stolen objects, and only in cases where such proof is not reasonably possible, or no more can be demanded, the content of the policy will constitute a presumption in favor of the insured. ”

The Section considered the pre-existence of the jewelery to be proven, although not the value of the stolen, estimating as compensation amount, 7.000 €, both parties must assume responsibility for their conduct. ZURICH, "For not carrying out an appraisal of the jewels prior to contracting the insurance", y D. Torcuato, "For the low interest shown in the accreditation of the value of stolen objects, being able to have given at least a more detailed description of them in order to be able to make a more adequate assessment. ”

The second reason alleged by D. Torcuato itself was estimated.

The first paragraph of art. 28 LCS, stated that "the parts, by mutual agreement, they may fix in the policy or after the conclusion of the contract the value of the insured interest that must be taken into account in calculating the compensation. ”

The Section considered that the expression insurance was included in the general conditions of the insurance "Sums insured", as the maximum quantity that ZURICH would have to deliver in case of theft, but not that this amount had to enter in any case of production of an accident, as it happened in this case.

Conclusion

La modalidad de seguroa primer riesgodebe estar claramente pactada entre las partes, that will fix the compensation in case of loss, without requiring a new assessment of it. If insurance is not at first risk, the insured must prove the pre-existence and valuation of the assets.

 Consult your case now

Leave a Reply

Language


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