Legal Obligation of Insurance

[pip24]

Hi.

Is it a legal obligation for insurance on a house that is habitable and TF+TDH is paid?

A strange question but.

The reason I ask is that I know of  someone that is selling their house in the next few weeks but have not renewed their insurance since October despite reminders.

If a problem occoured with that property that in turn caused damaged to other close by properties. How would reimburesment be made and by whom. 

[Pickles]

[quote user="pip24"]Is it a legal obligation for insurance on a house that is habitable and TF+TDH is paid?

A strange question but.

The reason I ask is that I know of  someone that is selling their house in the next few weeks but have not renewed their insurance since October despite reminders.

If a problem occoured with that property that in turn caused damaged to other close by properties. How would reimburesment be made and by whom. [/quote]

AFAIK there is no legal requirement to insure a building: the owner could be held personally liable for damage to other properties (or to people) due to causes emanating from his own property, but that would be a matter for a court.

[NormanH]

I think Pickles is right that there is no compulsion, but an assurance responsibilité civile is very prudent

http://www.assuranceresponsabilitecivile.com/

[Pickles]

[quote user="NormanH"]I think Pickles is right that there is no compulsion, but an assurance responsibilité civile is very prudent

http://www.assuranceresponsabilitecivile.com/[/quote]

The other issue is: what happens if something happens to the property itself?

I was informed that unless the compromis specifies that the transfer of ownership takes place only on the signing of the acte authentique, (and I suspect that there would normally be a term in a compromis to this effect) my understanding is that under art 1583 of the Code Civile the transfer actually takes effect on the date of signing of the compromis and therefore the purchaser becomes liable from that point. It seems somewhat strange to me but the principle seems to be that the clause suspensives basically annul the transfer retroactively if they are activated.

Thanks for reminding me of yet another legal position in France that I would NOT want to be in!

Detail of the relevant article, which concerns the conditions of sale:

"Article 1583

Créé par Loi 1804-03-06 promulguée le 16 mars 1804

Elle est parfaite entre les parties, et la propriété est acquise

de droit à l'acheteur à l'égard du vendeur, dès qu'on est convenu de la

chose et du prix, quoique la chose n'ait pas encore été livrée ni le

prix payé."

[NormanH]

That seems strange however, since I have now bought or sold 5 times in total and on none of the occasions was the need to insure before the 'acte' mentioned nor indeed acted upon.

Surely if it is the case the usual practice would be to insure on  signing the compromis ?

Or do they all automatically include the clause you mention nowadays?

[EuroTrashII]

But if the person is receiving 'reminders' it suggests they have not cancelled their insurance policy. Until a policy is cancelled according to proper procedures, it remains in force. Not paying the premium on time does not cause the policy to lapse, it is renewed automatically and the insurers will continue to pursue them for the year's premium.

[Pickles]

[quote user="NormanH"]That seems strange however, since I have now bought or sold 5 times in total and on none of the occasions was the need to insure before the 'acte' mentioned nor indeed acted upon.

Surely if it is the case the usual practice would be to insure on  signing the compromis ?

Or do they all automatically include the clause you mention nowadays?[/quote]

I agree, it seems very strange to me as well. I came across this a couple of years ago: I haven't checked the wording on a compromis de vente with regards to this issue. I was told that a promesse de vent did not have the same effect in this regard.

[Val_2]

Surely commonsense should prevail here. No insurance = no protection against losing the property to fire or accident and being sued by third party over problems arising from said uninsured property. Perhaps they have so much money they don't care about it any more. Maybe also they cannot get insurance through not paying the previous company in full etc, that happens a lot.

[Pommier]

Wo sold a house to French people who didn't reply to letters from our insurers (Groupama) to confirm that they had insurance on the house. Groupama wouldn't cancel the insurance until they had gone through a long procedure of recommandée letters, at the end of which they cancelled the policy and refunded us back to the sale date.

[nomoss]

For information re. a current Compromis de Vente :

We expect to sign the Acte to sell a property in mid-March. The Compromis de Vente states:

Entrée en Jouissance. - L'acquereur aura la jouissance de l'immeuble vendu au jour de la signature de l'acte authentique .......................

............. Le transfert des risques s'opérera le jour de l'entrée en jouissance.

Listed in the conditions of the sale, regarding the purchaser's obligations :

e) Il fera son affaire personnelle de la continuation ou de la résiliation de toutes polices d'assurance concernant ledit immeuble et qui lui seraient remises ou indiquées par le vendeur.

Il est rappelé qu'en application de l'article 19 de la loi du 13 juillet 1930, les assurances contre l'incendie couvrant l'immeuble vendu continueront de plein droit au profit de l'acquereur.

I understand the first part, that the buyer has the option to "take over" any insurance policies on the property.

But re. the second bit, I'm not sure whether this simply means that the buyer has the right to take over the policy, i.e. the insurers can't refuse to transfer it to him, or whether it means that, if the place burns down during the actual sale, that the insurance will be paid out to the buyer rather than the seller.

[Pickles]

[quote user="nomoss"]Il est rappelé qu'en application de l'article 19 de la loi du 13 juillet 1930, les assurances contre l'incendie couvrant l'immeuble vendu continueront de plein droit au profit de l'acquereur.

But re. the second bit, I'm not sure whether this simply means that the buyer has the right to take over the policy, i.e. the insurers can't refuse to transfer it to him, or whether it means that, if the place burns down during the actual sale, that the insurance will be paid out to the buyer rather than the seller.[/quote]

I'd vote for the second meaning being in effect correct ie it means that, if the place burns down during the actual sale, that the

insurance will be paid out to the buyer rather than the seller.

[pip24]

Thanks for the response to my question.

The situation puzzled me because when we bought our property the Notaire insisted on insurance being in force and the Agents name that it was with.

I have also read that "You are required by law to be insured against causing damage to Third Parties (responsabilite civil propietaire)"

From the information others have posted and from information that I have read then there is a legal requirement of third party insurance at the point of sale and the onus is on the Notaire to ensure that it is in place.

 

So my next Question is:-  Is there a legal requirement on the insurance company involved to make sure there is a continuation of this insurance?

Can a person just give cancellation notice and not be insured? 

The position at the moment is that the property owner says they have phoned the insurance company to cancel the insurance but has no intention to pay back payments!

I feel very uneasy at the moment. As someone pointed out if there was a fire I would probably have to claim in court and from what I have read on this Forum I don't have the kind of money to do that. Would  the onus be on my insurance company to go to court? Oddly enough it is the same insurance company that I use. This in turn would reflect back to my  New Question :- Is there a legal requirement on the insurance company to ensure continuation of insurance?

It is all very worrying,           I am thinking of changing my name to Nonails! 

[just john]

The Insurance companies procedure is that the insurance cover is continued until cancelled by registered notification including details of the superceding cover, until then they will issue (three) reminders for payment including notice that the amount outstanding will be pursued through bailiffs and the court (which will attract further charges), I believe their fourth letter is one where they must inform that cover has been withdrawn, despite which the monies are still due and will be pursued.[:-))]

[Chancer]

It was pretty much like that in the case of the three policies that I cancelled with AXA (2 property plus vehicle) all in accordance with the Loi Chatel which of course they completely ignored and pursued me as a non payer.

There were a lot more than 3 reminders but in each case the cancellation one was after about 6 months and were the only letters sent récommandé, hence the only ones worth taking notice of, all the others including ever escalating threats from faux huissiers went on for a total of 18 months before they ceased.

Effectively I "benefitted" from an additional 6 months cover on each policy but of course would have had to pay the premium to lodge a claim, no doubt if I did they would have suddenly found my letters of resiliation [;-)]