Six independent experts hired by insurance companies and fire investigators are awaiting permission from the Valencia Court of Instruction Nine to access the Campanar district buildings damaged by the deadly blaze. The delay in access centers on private investigators contracted by each insurer, who will prepare investigative reports for their respective clients. These reports will feed into a larger process that seeks to determine the causes of the fire and assign responsibility for the losses.
Within the ongoing procedures, civil liability for damages will be a central point of discussion. In conversations with staff at a local newspaper, sources indicated that the incident has largely been resolved for the developer involved, Fbex Promo Inmobiliaria SL, and for the architect who designed the structure, Francisco Nebot. The architect has chosen not to issue public comments from his office at this time.
The Building Regulation Act outlines who can be held responsible for structural damages arising from construction defects. It states that participants in the construction chain may bear civil liability for up to ten years for material damages to a building when flaws affect the foundations, supporting elements, beams, slabs, load bearing walls, or other structural components. The liability applies when such defects directly threaten the building’s mechanical strength and stability.
In the Campanar case, early assessments from architects consulted for the press indicate that the issue does not appear to be rooted in a major structural failure. Instead, the most likely area of concern, if any, would involve the building’s façade, which is classified under LOE as a superficial cladding element. Notably, the structure withstood the fire without a collapse in either of the affected blocks, even under the intense heat that accompanied the blaze.
Taking into account prescription periods, civil liability claims, if they arise, would have expired in 2019 under current rules. Previously, a fifteen year prescription period could apply to breaches of contract by the promoter, potentially extending back to 2015. In the Campanar projects, this could translate to prescription as early as January of the following year. The evolving timelines therefore shape how responsibility and compensation would be allocated among developers, designers, and insurers as authorities collect and assess all available information.
Experts emphasize that the present focus is on whether any structural or exterior elements were flawed and whether those flaws contributed to the fire or its spread. They note that the defense of the projects will rest on a careful separation of construction defects from other factors, such as maintenance regimes, fire safety measures, and the performance of non structural systems during the emergency. The case thus sits at the intersection of building science, contract law, and insurance practice, requiring a nuanced approach to liability that respects both technical findings and legal timelines.
As investigators proceed, the coordination among insurers, the developer, and the design team remains critical. The court’s authorization for independent expert work will determine the pace at which findings emerge, and the quality of those findings will influence any potential settlements or court decisions. Attorneys involved in the process suggest that, while fault may be distributed among different stakeholders, the key questions will revolve around causation, the extent of damages, and the proper allocation of responsibility within the construction chain.
Ultimately, the Campanar matter demonstrates how modern construction disputes unfold in courts: technical assessments must align with statutory timeframes, and the allocation of liability must account for variances in contract terms, professional duties, and the realities of a multi-party development project. The ongoing investigation will likely yield a clearer picture of what happened, who bears responsibility for damages, and how compensation will be structured for those affected by the fire.
Note The information presented reflects statements and positions reported by multiple outlets and official filings reviewed by the press. For a comprehensive understanding, readers should follow official court releases and verified disclosures as proceedings continue. (Source: Valencia press coverage and court filings)