Intentionally reluctance of the insured: Clarification on the horizon for insurance companies

Intentionally reluctance of the insured: Clarification on the horizon for insurance companies

Obtaining invalidity due to the insured’s objection or intentional misrepresentation on the basis of Article L 113-8 of the Insurance Law is not easy. This only happens after a long testing process that burdens the entire insurance company. The latter must already prove, first, that sufficiently accurate questions were put to the insured, and then that the answers personally given by the latter proved to be inaccurate, and then, that this initial false declaration or reluctance to amend later. on purpose and, finally, to have an effect on the opinion of the insurance company (against Equal, A.Pélissier, Civil Section 2e, 17 November 2016, Issue 15-24.819, RGDA 2017.37). Add to this that most of these conditions are subject to the sovereign evaluation of the judges on merit and he will understand that there is something to discourage the most reckless action of the people. This is how the author was recently able to explain the observation of a significant drop in litigation in this area by “exhausting insurance companies who may no longer see the point of facing rejection” (D. Krajeski, obs.ss Civ.2e, Dec. 9. 2021, No. 19-22.366, RCA 2022. Comm. 88). However, a glimmer of hope could come from a ruling issued on June 16, which is interesting because it is intended for publication in the prospectus (Civ. 2e, June 16, 2022, Issue 20-20,745, d. 2022.1204 ).

In this case, having already been subjected to the first censorship by the Court of Cassation (Civil Chamber 2eFebruary 7. 2019oh 18-10,658 NP, RCA 2019. 147, ob. Groutel), a SCI, in order to protect himself from the risks of unpaid rent of a lease entered into on September 1, 2010 with MMine M. and B. have an insurance contract with two insurance companies governed by the old “Rental Risk Guarantee” scheme (replaced by Visale 1 year ago).Verse January 2016). However, in parallel, the SCI Director also on September 15, 2010, in his personal capacity, the arbiter, entered into another lease on the same property but, this time, with MI M and her fiancé, Mo

Subsequently, the insured SCI, claiming that the initial tenants did not honor their rents between September 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013, requested a guarantee from the insurers for the amount of unpaid rents. As noted…

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *