Insurance Companies Will Have To Pay For Restaurants Closed Because Of The Alarm.

2021-02-10   |   by CusiGO

A decision in Girona’s hearing accused the insurer of paying a closure fee of 6000 euros to a pizza shop, a groundbreaking text on commercial insurance affected by the covid-19 restrictions. The civil part of the decision, with the presiding judge Fernando lacaba as the reporter, supports the appeal of the owner of Bella Napoli’s pizza shop and overturns the judgment of November 20, 2020 of the second trial court in Girona, which gives insurance companies a reason to do so. The ruling is firm and could open the door to a large number of claims from thousands of companies across the state that had to close because of the flu pandemic.

On February 13, 2020, one month before the start of the pandemic, the applicant and the entity segurcaixa business entered into an insurance policy covering a variety of contingencies for their business. It also reached a special clause on “loss of profits / closure” in the amount of EUR 200 per day for 30 days, non tax free. The applicant’s business has been paralyzed for more than 30 days due to the legislation arising from the impact of coronavirus, and believes that it has the responsibility to get compensation from the insurance company for the “special terms” in its contract. The insurance company refused to pay on the ground that when explaining the product to the insured, “there is no place on the policy where it is required to pay for downtime costs arising from decisions made by the government at the time of the pandemic.”.

In November 2020, the second court of first instance rejected the request on the grounds that the general terms of the contract set out the common exclusion clause of compensation for daily work stoppage, one of which was: “we will not compensate for the losses caused by it, Arising from or arising out of any restriction or restriction imposed by any agency or public authority or any ora as a result of force majeure (including expropriation or destruction) to remedy the damage or to carry on business normally. ”

The owner of the pizza shop appealed against the decision, and now the civil part of the hearing has ruled on the appeal and withdrawn it. In his February 3 judgment, the judge stressed that he faced “a new problem” within the framework of an insurance contract that seemed to change the coordinates of the different insurance coverage agreed upon at that time for the risks analyzed. He added that “in the field of insurance contracts, the impact of special circumstances caused by the covid-19 virus is particularly significant.” the judge held that the controversial decision “did not take into account the characteristics of insurance contracts, With regard to the nature of these provisions and their impact in specific cases, “he argues that” although the possibility of a pandemic closure is not explicitly included in the insurance policy, “it is not ruled out either, and that, therefore, not processing restaurant claims would limit their rights. Exclusion is a kind of “restrictive clause”, and the legal provisions must be clear and definite.