Water damage during vacation: Does insurance pay?

An Austrian homeowner's insurance dispute has reached the Supreme Court, focusing on whether a water damage claim is valid when the property was unoccupied for an extended period. The case highlights the complexities surrounding the "72-hour clause," a common provision in building insurance policies.

This clause typically mandates that the main water supply must be shut off if a building remains unoccupied for more than 72 hours. Disputes often arise over whether sporadic visits by family members or neighbors to care for the property negate the need to shut off the water.

In this specific instance, the homeowner was on a two-week vacation, but his daughter, who lives nearby, visited every other day. She collected mail, watered plants, checked emails, and did laundry. Her young son also accompanied her on these visits.

The insurance company argued that these visits were mere "inspections" and not sufficient "use" of the property to meet the policy's requirements. They contended that the daughter's visits did not equate to the intensity of occupation needed to bypass the clause. However, the courts, including the Supreme Court, disagreed.

The ruling emphasized that the word "or" in the policy's wording ("unoccupied or unused") indicated alternative conditions. The court found that the property was indeed "used" during the owner's absence due to the daughter's regular visits, thereby upholding the homeowner's claim.