Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
ATAS/1047/2005 • CJ GE ATAS/1047/2005 Généré par l'IA

Contractual Indemnity for Negligent Latent Defects and Insurance Coverage

Numéro de cause ATAS/1047/2005
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Genève (CH-GE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Admis (Allowed)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The court considered whether certain prior court decisions regarding the scope of contractual limitation of liability clauses, specifically concerning indemnity for negligence, applied to the present dispute involving insurance coverage for latent defects discovered after construction completion. The court reasoned that the indemnity clauses in the parties' agreement, structured similarly to those in the precedent cases, were intended to encompass claims arising from latent defects, including those based on negligence, as the parties had explicitly contracted to allocate such risks, and therefore, the insurance obligation tracked the indemnity obligation, leading to the conclusion that coverage was valid for the discovered defects.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 66 al. 1 LTF; Contractual Indemnity for Negligent Latent Defects and Insurance Coverage: The court reasoned that the indemnity clauses in the parties' agreement, structured similarly to those in the precedent cases, were intended to encompass claims arising from latent defects, including those based on negligence, as the parties had explicitly contracted to allocate such risks, and therefore, the insurance obligation tracked the indemnity obligation, leading to the conclusion that coverage was valid for the discovered defects.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
responsabilité contractuelle défauts de construction couverture d'assurance défaut caché partie au contrat assurance contre les dommages

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Généré par l'IA

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 66 al. 1 LTF

The court ordered the appellant to pay the costs of the federal proceedings.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

               $%&'($)( +$,*-&$)(

+

" + " .+#  ". #. 

./ ! -  %* 0 ! )( 



 !"#$%   !#&'( ' $'""#) '""*'   $





'

++     ) ,,    !" '#$ -./!&'012!3133   34



         ! "#  

   71507  

  1 8    $'$ ('# "9 "' "  '#1666:

& "$".;1662!9<<'"97("'$=7&> 9 ?  "$ % 9'$$  ' '> "9("'$ " 3 # 1663  46 (1662!&"#7'"9("'$">3#1662:

9$!&$'$& $  !<#$&&'"'" 32@'1662!#'<89A'';&'$"'("366B:

&"$"1/&'#A1662!9 ;'$9&&'"9$:

 9$! &$'$ &  #"'!  ';'$   "' " 1/ 'A 1662!<'(89#A"#$"89'C#$9"'%" 8  $8 &D-8 ' &-D8 ' '''! " #> $#$"A!  &'$"'('"E: $"'"'">3#1662& C&'#$"$': 9'&$A#'#F( "9(C&'!<"9$'A(&$"E$"9("'$!E" "'''&D-8'&-D8: <"!'%89'"'' ''$8&'$"'("E'"366B:

 &  " 3/ (#A 1662! 9   ##8$  A " $ & "  "$ '<$  '  #G# ;! '  "$  &&'"1/&'#A1662'"$".;1662!&H'( "   & & "9''  <# '##' "9 C&' &"&'("$:

 "  ( "$! 9   &$$ 8 "'  &D "9'' #&$#'!''"&("#7'"9("'$;89% 89'#"''9#A""':



.   8   E(  9E' ;" =?  $'$ #"<$ '  ''$! ">  3 @' 1664! ' 89 A ' "  !#&$"2;E!"'&$"''(7&$"'!2&&$''3I ;E='J3'J'2I ?:

'%9'"9$'"3I;E!& A<$"$ 1/;(1660= +34636I?!" E("&'$!34<$(! "&'''E'&#''' A'"



54/.251662  74507   " $E   % ' ;E ''! ! " 9''' " 9$' " (C;EJ

<#$#'%9'J2I! A"$*'!'8! "'''&$(%9'J2I"<$"$&'E$$""'"   " K 'A 1666 = ? 8 ' '( %   <$"$  9("'$"3.;3.2.= ?:

#&$'&;E""9&>'$'AJ

 <#$#' % 9'J 24 J 4  ! 9 &'! ;89% 9( "  &$(%)''$"!"$"$"$'8 $'$<#$:J

("$"'G''<$''##8$%9''$" :

9  #' &"' <  'E 8 "  # L  &" C "':

 ' '    9! ">  8 )'#$  "$  & " )''! '##'   <# ") C&' &"&! % ) " 8"("$:



















54/.251662  70507    . #+ 2  + " .+#  ". #. 



341   5  6   78 ,9) # :

  1 

3J $(AJ

 1

1J "'"("$"&9 J

4J '8'"(A;'J

0J "#9 %&-'##"K66<J%''"&'&' %<'"$&J

2J -"MJ    E<<  $"'     N"         

&<#"&$'G'''<$C&'89%9<<<$"$ "&E<<



54/.251662