LOn November 8, 2011, during a storm, waves overcame the sea wall of the port of Saint-Laurent-du-Var (Alpes-Maritimes). They take the car and drop it in the water, between the Sealine F33 ship and the dock it is moored to. By tilting the back of the ship, the car causes its engine to sink.
An expert appointed by the boat’s insurer D Assurances estimates the total damage to the boat as a result of the storm at €14,542, after applying the deterioration factors. Including €3,146 due to the car falling (the cost of replacing the boat pump after applying an obsolescence factor of €172 and deducting €400).
D Assurances offers to pay €14,542 to Mr X, the ship owner, who declines the offer. He is asking for 27,000 euros in material damages and 39,000 euros for loss of use. It grants D Assurances also, a “Direct action by an injured third party against the insurer of the liable party”BPCE IARD, car insurer.
Badinter Act of 1985
BPCE IARD responds that its guarantee cannot be mobilized because “There was no traffic accident”, within the meaning of the law of July 5, 1985, known as the “Badinter Law”. Magistrates argue that it is wrong: “The provisions of the law of July 5, 1985 apply to victims of road traffic accidents. » That’s why they are “usable” In this case, on May 9, 2019, the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence (Bouches-du-Rhône) judges.
However, the compensation that Mr. “Does not apply to the relationship between the person responsible for the damage and the victim”More honesty.
D Assurances is entitled to recover €3,146 from BPCE IARD. He is not entitled to any compensation for loss of utility, as this was not provided for in his contract.
Source: Le Monde
Ashley Fitzgerald is a financial whiz and a writer at Run Down Bulletin. With a passion for all things economy, she provides insightful and thought-provoking coverage of the latest economic trends and events.