{"id":307,"date":"2011-04-12T20:07:03","date_gmt":"2011-04-12T19:07:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/?p=307"},"modified":"2014-05-05T19:06:17","modified_gmt":"2014-05-05T18:06:17","slug":"buyer-at-santa-ana-del-monte-wins-court-case-against-unusual-insurer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/buyer-at-santa-ana-del-monte-wins-court-case-against-unusual-insurer\/","title":{"rendered":"Buyer at Santa Ana del Monte Wins Court Case Against Unusual Insurer"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"SantaWe took some chances and it worked out. A claim filed against the guarantor of\u00a0the Herrada del Tollo S.L.<\/strong>, developer for Santa Ana del Monte<\/strong> (and who we jumped over since they\u2019d filed for voluntary insolvency), has been resolved favourable for the claimant. From a procedural point of view, it is an interesting case for it was not heard given that, legally speaking, the issues at stake were purely juridical and therefore, no evidence was to be proposed for admittance. In other words, there was no evidence of probative value in dispute and consequently, the pre-trial was enough to fix the object of the case and conclude that there was no possible settlement.<\/p>\n

The defendant, \u201cSociedad de Garant\u00eda Rec\u00edproca de la Comunidad Valenciana (SGR)\u201d, an insurance company of uncertain purpose, had given a guarantee to cover deposits worth \u20ac6,500,000, on behalf of Herrada del Tollo S.L. They did not, however, offer individual policies or guarantee documents to each individual and so, tried to negate the validity of the document under this pretext. The Court contended that not having an individual policy was not tantamount to losing the cover <\/em><\/strong>and falling by the wayside, given that the inalienable rights dispensed under Law 57\/1968 are of a consumer-protection nature<\/em>, but furthermore the ruling establishes that it was the intention of the insurer, when entering into a contract with the developer, to guarantee the down payments<\/em>.Secondly, they opposed that the sums were not paid into the special account the law envisages and also, that the policy was capped to a certain sum. According to the judge, private agreements between the developer and the insurer cannot affect the privileged immunity the consumer has, in relation to Law 57\/1968. <\/em>The judge ruled that the defendant must pay back \u20ac60,000 plus interest,<\/strong> calculated as from the time the developer took the deposit.<\/p>\n

Documents<\/strong><\/p>\n