Home insurance is an important purchase for many owners as it provides calmness and protection from unforeseen events. Although most household insurance policies cover their property, extended civil liability cover may provide additional protection for their private life. This type of coverage can help protect it from negligent acts that could lead to demands or other financial losses.
What is extended civil liability insurance?
It is a type of insurance that provides additional cover beyond the standard liability limits of its automobile policy, such as death and body injury caused by an accident. It provides additional protection for homeowners beyond their traditional home insurance policy. It can also cover the costs of legal defence and sentences passed against third parties due to an accident.
Extended civil liability insurance is important because it provides additional protection against financial losses arising from an accident. In the event of an accident, extended civil liability insurance can help it to cover medical bills and other costs that it would otherwise not be able to afford without such cover.
In addition, it can help protect it from the costly legal fees associated with defence in court if it is prosecuted for accident-related damage. In short, household insurance with extended civil liability can provide calmness in the event of an accident and help it to protect its long-term heritage.
Condemned to the insurer to cover damage caused by the dog of the cohabiting couple and cohabitant of the insurer
A recent court ruling has set a legal precedent as regards insurance cover for pet-related harm. The case centered on a insured man who had a cohabiting partner and living with a dog. When the dog caused material damage, the insurance company refused to cover the cost of repairs.
However, after taking the case to court, the home insurance handler managed to cover the damage caused by his partner’s mascot. This court decision shows that insurance companies can no longer refuse to cover the damage caused by pets just because the animal does not belong to the insurance taker itself.
The case began when the concubine and de facto partner of the insurance preacher lived with them in their home and brought their pet dog with him. One day, while neglected, the dog caused damage to personal objects and housing properties. The insurer filed a complaint with his supplier to cover these expenses, but was denied due to a clause in his contract that excluded from coverage domestic animals other than his property.
After receiving two other denials from different insurers, they decided to take legal action against their current insurer on the grounds that they should be covered by their existing policy regardless of the property of the animal causing the damage.
The insurance company refused to compensate for the losses, as the dog did not belong to the insurer and the insurer did not accompany him when the incident that required compensation occurred. The dog, who was being walked by the father of the insured couple, had attacked another woman walking her two dogs, causing damage to her and killing one of them.
Reported by the aggravated person, the owner of the aggressor dog provided his partner’s home insurance policy as compensation for the damages suffered; however, the insurer refused to offer compensation for the aforementioned reasons. Initially, the courts agreed with the insurer, as there was no evidence that the dog lived in the house covered by the home insurance and its owner was not a beneficiary of it.
The home insurer, partner, and coach took his case to the Supreme Court (TS), which ruled in his favour. The TS determined that the insurer did not question the information nor denied that the policy paid for the damage caused by dogs inside the dwelling; it simply argued that the insurer was not the animal’s owner or possessor and that, according to the specific terms of the policy, only one person was listed as a regular inhabitant in the residence.
At the trial, the plaintiffs proposed testifical evidence that was essential to prove their argument; that the home insurance policy does not cover the sinister because the dog does not reside at home and its owner is the prisoner’s partner. However, she was dismissed.
On the other hand, the direct action of the injured party falls outside the scope of the exemptions that may fall to the insurer when it comes to the insurer; these include those relating to the specification of risk and its empowerment, and therefore those relating to the dog in the insured household even if it has not been declared, as well as to another natural person resident in the same house, the owner of this pet – this point is indisputable.
Our professionals are at your disposal to resolve any doubt you have regarding the covers of your insurance and to exercise if necessary the actions that may correspond to defending your rights.