Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
JURITEXT000007075059 Généré par l'IA

Entrepreneur Liability and Decennial Warranty Interruption via Insurer Settlement

Numéro de cause JURITEXT000007075059
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction France (FR)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

An entrepreneur who constructed a housing development was sued for construction defects more than ten years after acceptance of the work and was ordered to pay damages; the entrepreneur appealed, arguing the lower court erred by deducing from the insurer's settlement that responsibility had been acknowledged, thus interrupting the ten-year warranty period, without establishing an express power of attorney to settle, but the appellate court's finding that the insurer intervened at the entrepreneur's personal request, coupled with the conclusion that the entrepreneur also had an interest in the settlement due to the prior acknowledgment of responsibility and actual coverage of repair work, was deemed sufficient to establish an implied mandate, justifying the interruption of the decennial warranty period.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

ARTICLES 1988 ET 1989 DU CODE CIVIL; Entrepreneur Liability and Decennial Warranty Interruption via Insurer Settlement: An entrepreneur who constructed a housing development was sued for construction defects more than ten years after acceptance of the work and was ordered to pay damages; the entrepreneur appealed, arguing the lower court erred by deducing from the insurer's settlement that responsibility had been acknowledged, thus interrupting the ten-year warranty period, without establishing an express power of attorney to settle, but the appellate court's finding that the insurer intervened at the entrepreneur's personal request, coupled with the conclusion that the entrepreneur also had an interest in the settlement due to the prior acknowledgment of responsibility and actual coverage of repair work, was deemed sufficient to establish an implied mandate, justifying the interruption of the decennial warranty period.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
responsabilité de l'assureur garantie en raison des défauts de la chose assurance d'interruption d'exploitation dommages-intérêts contractuels procuration défauts de construction

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
ARTICLES 1988 ET 1989 DU CODE CIVIL
The Court of Cassation implicitly rejected the argument based on Articles 1988 and 1989 of the Civil Code by finding the ground of appeal unfounded.
Généré par l'IA
89-18569
Property Owner v. Entrepreneur and Insurers on Contract Termination and Liability
76-11039
Entrepreneur's Indemnity Claim Against Insurer for Post-Sale Defects Rejected
85-18839
Property Owner v. Contractor's Insurer: Post-Termination Liability for Construction Defects
09-11205
Owners v. Contractor and Insurer on Defective Facade Work and Ten-Year Liability Insurance
89-14945
Owner v. Contractor and Insurers on Contract Termination and Warranty Liability

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
ARTICLES 1988 ET 1989 DU CODE CIVIL

The Court of Cassation implicitly rejected the argument based on Articles 1988 and 1989 of the Civil Code by finding the ground of appeal unfounded.

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

SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE : ATTENDU, SELON L'ARRET ATTAQUE (BOURGES, 17 JUIN 1980), QUE M X..., ENTREPRENEUR AYANT CONSTRUIT UN LOTISSEMENT POUR LE COMPTE DE LA SOCIETE BERRY LOGEMENTS, A ETE, PLUS DE DIX ANS APRES RECEPTION DES TRAVAUX, ASSIGNE EN RAISON DE MALFACONS ET CONDAMNE A REPARATION ;

ATTENDU QUE M X... REPROCHE A L'ARRET D'AVOIR DEDUIT DE LA TRANSACTION OPEREE PAR SON ASSUREUR UNE RECONNAISSANCE DE RESPONSABILITE ENTRAINANT L'INTERRUPTION DU DELAI DE GARANTIE DECENNALE, ALORS, SELON LE MOYEN, "QU'EN NE CONSTATANT PAS L'EXISTENCE D'UN MANDAT EXPRES DE TRANSIGER, LA COUR D'APPEL, EU EGARD AUX ARTICLES 1988 ET 1989 DU CODE CIVIL, N'A PAS DONNE DE BASE LEGALE A SA DECISION" ;

MAIS ATTENDU QUE L'ARRET CONSTATE QUE M X... RECONNAIT LUI-MEME QUE SON ASSUREUR EST INTERVENU A SA DEMANDE PERSONNELLE A LA SUITE DE SA DECLARATION DE SINISTRE ;

QUE LA COUR D'APPEL RETIENT ENSUITE QUE M LEOMENT ETAIT AUSSI INTERESSE QUE SON ASSUREUR A LA SOLUTION TRANSACTIONNELLE PAR RECONNAISSANCE PREALABLE DE RESPONSABILITE ET PRISE EN CHARGE EFFECTIVE DES TRAVAUX DE REFECTION ;

QUE DE CES MOTIFS D'OU RESULTE L'EXISTENCE D'UN MANDAT, ELLE A PU DEDUIRE UNE RECONNAISSANCE DE RESPONSABILITE INTERRUPTIVE DU DELAI DECENNAL ;

D'OU IL SUIT QUE LE MOYEN N'EST PAS FONDE ;

PAR CES MOTIFS : REJETTE LE POURVOI FORME CONTRE L'ARRET RENDU LE 17 JUIN 1980 PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE BOURGES ;