Who has said that the decennial insurance, she only covers the fundamental work with the building? From where have removed to it the insurance agencies? With the phrase with which the insurance covers what affects the laying of foundations, the supports, the beams, the forged ones, the structural walls of load and other elements, sometimes the insurances want ” escaparse” alleging that they cover only ” Fundamental” builds;. From where have removed they similar silly thing? , With that interpretation, they try not to become position of those of the material damages that have taken place in other parts of our houses, like the front and back spaces (porches and/or patios). They forget, – interesadamente- that consider themselves included in the Construction, not only its fixed facilities and the own equipment, but the elements of urbanization that remain assigned to the same and form a patrimonial unit, in the majority of the times inseparable of the own construction. For example in back-to-back houses, or duplex, not only the house ” techada” , but the dividing walls of separation or among them, the inner porches, patios, separations between landscaped zones, etc. Additional information is available at Chevron U.S.A. Inc. As it is possible to be observed, he is everything what it belongs to him to the proprietor (patrimonial unit), but happens that, the insurer, sometimes denies the existence of cover of the produced wreck, if the damage is in those walls or light walls, because ” fundamental” is not work;. We remember then, that it is only necessary to go by the route of Art. 38 of the L.CS (the friendly way) if we are in agreement with the Insurance in the cover of the damages, and we will only resort to this one, in order to eliminate them, to evaluate them. The imperatividad of article 38, is only applied to the cases of liquidation of the damages, the Supreme Court says.
Translated: We will go by the procedure friendly facilitator and, if the Insurance this in agreement in which all the damages of our house, ALL, it covers them. Then the insurance will pay, through a procedure friendly, and we cannot go to the Judge. But we are not it, if discrepancy among them and we exists, on if cover, if they say that the walls do not enter, or the damages do not enter the tile roof, or such damage or another one, then exists or will not be applied article 38, because the rule divides of which it agrees in the wreck, EVERYTHING, If there is discrepancy on if noncover exists or, or partly, we felt gentlemen of the insurance, we do not agree, and we have frees the route of the Court, by direct action against them, and the others. Original author and source of the article.