In a noteworthy judgment delivered on 11 April 2025, the Court of Como ruled on the interpretation of clauses in an insurance policy covering property damage.
A British couple who owned a house in the municipality of Laglio had taken out an insurance policy through a friend who acted as an intermediary with an Italian insurer. The policy included coverage for “fire and other damage to the house” as well as “weather events, rainwater, and snow overload.” According to the policy definitions, this covered events such as “hurricanes, storms, wind and objects carried, lifted, transported or knocked over by wind, hail, tornadoes,” and extended to “any damage caused by water inside the building when the atmospheric event causes breaks, cracks, or damage to the external roofing, walls, or fixtures.”
Later, a severe storm caused extensive damage to the property. The owners filed a claim with the insurer, which was denied on the grounds that the damage had resulted from a flood, an event not covered by the policy. As a result, legal proceedings were initiated. The plaintiffs sought:
(i) a declaration of the policy’s validity and recognition of the damage suffered due to the storm; or, alternatively,
(ii) a finding of liability against the intermediary for failing to provide complete information regarding the policy’s scope.
The Court dismissed the claim, noting that the couple had not activated the specific clause titled “floods and inundations,” which would have covered the atmospheric event that ultimately caused the damage. Evidence showed that the destruction was due to the overflow of a nearby stream, which flooded the house with water and mud.
What makes this decision particularly interesting is the Court’s reliance on the principle of “adequate causality” (also referred to by the Supreme Court, see judgment no. 16123/2010). According to this principle, when a judgment involves hypothetical conditions, “only those factors which, based on an ex ante assessment, are not completely implausible should be considered within the causal chain.”
Applying this reasoning, the Court held that although heavy rain triggered the flood, the actual cause of the damage was the resulting inundation—an event specifically excluded from coverage under the policy.
In interpreting the policy, the judge emphasized the distinction between the coverage selected by the plaintiffs, which included “water damage,” and the unselected clause covering “flooding and inundation.” The latter extended to all material damage caused by water leakage, including scenarios resulting from earthquakes, and encompassed all atmospheric events that could lead to flooding.
This judgment underscores the importance of carefully reviewing insurance contracts for property damage. When taking out a policy, it is essential to thoroughly examine the scope of each clause to ensure that the coverage aligns with one’s actual needs. Overlooking or misinterpreting subtle distinctions between different types of coverage can lead to serious consequences. It is therefore advisable to scrutinize every detail of an insurance contract before signing.