Expertise: Insurance Law
Time Frame: 15+ Years
Exposure: €25 million
Successfully represented an insurer in complex property damage insurance litigation arising from a fire affecting a large office building. The case concerned a major office building affected by a fire, involving extensive technical investigations and multiple expert reports addressing both construction aspects and insurance coverage.
The dispute focused on distinguishing strictly insured fire-related damages from construction defects, prior deterioration, and modernization costs. The dispute required a clear separation between insured physical damage and pre-existing defects or non-covered improvements, in the absence of reconstruction of the building. In the absence of reconstruction of the building, the insurer’s liability was limited to the actual damage suffered. The insurer’s position was upheld, preventing unjustified claims for full coverage and avoiding additional payments exceeding EUR 15 million.
The matter was significant due to the scale of the claimed losses and the risk of unjustified expansion of insurance liability.
The primary challenge of this property damage insurance litigation was managing highly technical disputes involving architectural, structural, and engineering expert evidence, while maintaining a clear legal framework for insurance coverage. The case required resisting attempts to transform a partial loss into a de facto total loss claim, despite the lack of reconstruction and the presence of significant non-insured factors.
Key areas involved:
Conducted a detailed review of expert reports concerning the building’s condition, fire impact, and alleged repair costs, correlating technical findings with insurance coverage limits
Established a clear boundary between insured fire damage and non-covered elements, including construction defects, betterments, and modernization works.
Developed a litigation strategy focused on evidentiary discipline, challenging inconsistent expert conclusions and ensuring proportionality between damage and indemnity.
Structured legal arguments to prevent escalation toward full coverage claims, preserving the indemnity principle and protecting the insurer from disproportionate financial exposure.
The insurer successfully limited its liability to the actual insured damage strictly attributable to the fire. The court confirmed that, in the absence of reconstruction, no total loss or extended coverage could be claimed, effectively safeguarding the insurer from additional unjustified payments exceeding EUR 25 million.
