It confirmed that the insured is not responsible for arson damage

Federal Supreme Council set aside a ruling to compensate an institution with 5 million dirhams for a fire

The court appointed an account expert and another specialist in fires, before pronouncing the verdict.

Photography: Eric Arazas

The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling that required an insurance company to compensate a commercial enterprise with an amount of five million dirhams, after a fire broke out in two insured warehouses.

The court decided to refer the case to the Court of Appeal for further consideration, in light of the non-response of the judgment to the defendant’s defense that the fire was deliberate by the plaintiff.

In the details, an institution filed a commercial lawsuit against an insurance company demanding the ruling obligating it to pay it an amount of 10 million 813 thousand and 810 dirhams, and its interest is 12% annually from the date of the claim until full payment.

She said that she contracted with the defendant company to insure two warehouses, and paid the installments due on them, and a fire broke out in them, which led to the burning of their assets and assets, and caused them damages equal to the claimed amount.

The court appointed an account expert and another specialist in fires, and after each of them submitted their report, the court of first instance ordered the defendant insurance company to pay the plaintiff five million and 326 thousand and 709 dirhams, and his interest is 5% annually from the date of the claim until full payment, and the Court of Appeal confirmed it.

The plaintiff and the defendant did not accept this ruling, so they contested it before the Federal Supreme Court.

The defense of the insurance company said that “the ruling violated the law and was wrong in its application, because its defense was conducted before the trial court that the fire accident did not include insurance coverage, due to the intolerance of the fire and its fabrication by the plaintiff, and its breach of the terms of the insurance policy, and that the forensic laboratory report proved that the fire occurred as a result of the receipt of a source Rapid heat with direct flame, with the contents of the plaintiff's two warehouses, after using gasoline.

The defense added that it emerged from the prosecution's investigations that there was no trace of breaking the doors of the two warehouses, and that the plaintiff was the one who kept their keys, which indicates that she was the one who deliberately set off the fire, and this confirms that the plaintiff had requested three months before the accident to obtain an attachment for insurance, including her civil responsibility. Towards third parties, and that her financial situation was poor, and that the witness decided in the investigations of the prosecution that the fire extinguishing system on the roof of the store was not working, and no maintenance was carried out for it, but the contested ruling rejected her defense in this regard.

The Federal Supreme Court upheld the defendant's appeal, indicating that the text of the articles of the Civil Transactions Law indicates that the insured is responsible for fire damage that occurs due to the fault of the insured or the beneficiary, even if it was a serious mistake, or that was caused by the insured's subordinates, regardless of their type, He is also responsible for the damages resulting from the fire, even if the fire results from a defect in the insured thing, but the liability of the insured is no longer responsible, and he is not responsible for the damages resulting from the fire caused by the insured or the beneficiary, or caused by intention or fraud.

She indicated that the appealed ruling supporting the issuance of the primary judgment concluded that the defendant company was obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the damages resulting from the fire in question, and responded to the defendant's defense by saying that what she decided does not prove that the plaintiff was the one who caused the fire, and she did not provide evidence. Moreover, what the defendant decides is nothing but a sender saying that is not supported by evidence, in addition to the fact that the Public Prosecution decided that there is no reason to file a lawsuit, because the perpetrator is not known, and there is no evidence to prove the cancellation of this order.

• The Foundation demanded the insurance company for 10.8 million dirhams and the interest of the amount.

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news