A woman in front of a closed restaurant in Madrid. (Photo: Marcos del Mazo / LightRocket via .)
The Court of First Instance 14 of Granada has fully estimated the claim of the owner of a restaurant and has sentenced his insurer to pay him 80,000 euros, considering that the mandatory closure of the premises as a measure to stop the spread of the pandemic is indeed a sinister .
The sentence, against which there is an appeal, condemns the insurer Generali Seguros to pay 80,000 euros to a client who contracted a multi-risk policy for his activity in his restaurant, which, like the rest of the hotel establishments, had to close during the state of alarm.
The client of the insurer claimed the insurance coverage to respond to the losses suffered during the closing and, taking into account the calculations of the contract, requested the 80,000 euros now estimated by the court.
The premises, represented by the lawyer Antonio Estella, from the MLegal office, had to close for 80 days in the most acute phase of the pandemic, which the court in charge of the case has considered cause of loss and, therefore, included in your policy options.
The policy included loss of benefits
The court ruling indicates that the wording of the policy includes as a definition of risk the loss of benefits as a result of any loss whose material damage is covered by the policy and indicates that any type of cause for the stoppage of the activity is included in the scope of the contract.
“The foregoing determines that the situation generated by the measures adopted to stop the expansion of the covid-19 and, among them, the cessation of the activity of the insured business should be considered included in the coverage of the policy,” says the sentence.
According to the resolution, the owner of the establishment expressly requested when they presented the first proposal of the policy that it include the guarantee of cessation of activity, which was signed at his request, being one of the guarantees whose premium is higher.
Along with this, the judge considers that “neither can it be considered that the pandemic situation that gave rise to the adoption of the measures contained in the Royal Decree declaring the state of alarm – today declared unconstitutional – can be considered included in the force majeure defined by the Civil Code as those events that could not have been foreseen, or that, if foreseen, were unavoidable (…) since the possibility of periodically suffering pandemics is a fact recognized by the insurance sector itself ”.
This article originally appeared on The HuffPost and has been updated.