A pioneering decision by court number two in Pola de Siero in Asturias, a The insurer will pay a total compensation of 40,500 Euros. plus interest in an entrepreneur three months after its establishment during Pandemic. The appealable decision establishes that in order for the insurer not to pay, it must notify its client that certain terms of the policy agreement exclude payment of compensation in the event of a pandemic such as the coronavirus. Since it is understood that this is not the case and there is no force majeure, and there was a “limitation of rights”The judge considers the claim and orders the insurer to pay this €40,500 plus interest for the three-month interruption of activity.
The plaintiff, who operates a yogurt counter, was represented by David Mayo of the Oviedo law firm MP Abogados y Asesores. According to the lawyer handling other similar cases, in the area between 25,000 and 28,000 businesses in the same situation and those who have been given “light” so that they can receive compensation for the consequences of measures “overruled by the Constitutional Court”.
Although it was the first decision in Asturias to require a businessman to be compensated for the shutdown due to the pandemic, similar failures have occurred in other parts of Spain, from Gerona to Granada. In the first case, it is confirmed No appeal was filed by the insurer Which was convicted by the County Court.
loss of profit
As detailed by Mayo, most businesses usually have an insurance policy that covers them for a maximum of three months of lost or lost profits and an indemnity estimate for each day of inactivity. Additionally, there is a fact sheet listing the specific conditions and reasons that will make this subscription effective, including an accident or serious malfunction. In this particular case, the decision will be made if the insurer feels that it should not pay for a business to close due to a pandemic. It should be clearly stated in the articlesso the client was aware of this, because he understands that the health crisis does not amount to a “force majeure” that would exempt him from paying the contractual compensation.
“Judge, the verdict limits rights and is illegal“Thinking we are facing a good sentence, Mayo emphasizes, although it is still appealable as the Court has to decide on this at some point”.
In the lawyer’s view, this is a “new and important” provision that could lead to more penalties in this regard. However, as noted, claims from insurers are “droppered” in Asturias.
In the case of Gerona, whose penalty is pioneering at the national level, the compensation for the shutdown also corresponds to a business in the restaurant sector. Specifically, a pizzeria. His claim against the restaurant’s insurer was dismissed by the Court of First Instance, considering that the customer had explicit knowledge of the policy’s contents. However, the County Court continued to overturn the initial decision to anticipate the claim made by the plaintiff pizzeria, whose policy was the same. there was a special section for “stopping activity”. As in the Siero case, the judge ruled that there was a “limitation of rights”.