Supreme Court

DECENNIAL insurance, the possibility of claiming insurance directly who has said that the ten-year, single insurance covers the fundamental work of the building? Where are you have get the insurance companies? With the phrase that insurance covers what affects the Foundation, brackets, beams, slabs, load-bearing walls and other structural elements, sometimes want insurance to escape alleging that they cover only the Fundamental work. Of where they have brought such nonsense?, with that interpretation, intended to not be responsible for the material damage that have occurred in other parts of our houses, as the front spaces and rear (porches or courtyards). Forget them, – interest – which are considered included in the building, not only its fixed installations and own equipment, but elements of urbanization that remain attached to it, and form a heritage unit, in the most often inseparable from the own building. By example in semi-detached or duplex, not only the roofed house, but the walls of separation or mediators such as porches, courtyards, separations between landscaped areas, etc. As you can see, it is everything that belongs to the owner (heritage unit), but it happens that the insurer, sometimes denies the existence of coverage of the accident produced, if the damage is in those walls or light walls, because it is not fundamental work. Then, remember that you should only go by way of article 38 of the L.CS (the amicable) if we agree with the insurance coverage for damage, and only resort to this, to settle them, to evaluate them.

The imperatividad of article 38, applies only to cases of liquidation of damages, said the Supreme Court. Translated: We go by the facilitator and friendly, procedure if the insurance agrees that all damages our housing, all the covers. Then the insurance will pay, through a mutual agreement procedure, and not go to the judge. But if not we are, if there is a discrepancy between them and us, about whether it exists or not coverage, if they say that they do not enter the walls, or do not enter the damage to the roof, or such damage or other, then shall not apply article 38, because the precept part that is sinister, all agree, if there is disagreement about whether or not there is coverage, or in part, sorry gentlemen of the insurance, we are not in agreement, and the Court route, we have free by direct action against them, and others.