Droit Immobilier

The completion of the work not being

📅 Décision du 09 October 1991⚖️ Cour de cassation📖 2 min de lecture

The completion of the works not being a necessary condition for acceptance, the Court of Appeal legally justifies its decision ordering the builder's insurer to remedy the defects, finding that judicial acceptance must be set at the date of the expert's report drawn up after an adversarial meeting and that the defects are of the type for which the insurer owed cover.

Reference decision : cc • N° 90-14.739 • 1991-10-09 • See the decision →

This decision provides important insight into your property law. Here is what it changes for you.

The situation

The completion of the works not being a necessary condition for acceptance, the Court of Appeal legally justifies its decision ordering the builder's insurer to remedy the defects, finding that judicial acceptance must be set at the date of the expert's report drawn up after an adversarial meeting and that the defects are of the type for which the insurer owed cover.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points

  • Strictly comply with statutory limitation periods for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (title deeds, instruments, correspondence)
  • Anticipate: preventive advice always costs less than litigation

For an analysis of your situation: 30-minute consultation at €45 with Maître Zakine.

📌 Does this apply to your situation? Maître Cécile Zakine, French real estate lawyer, practises throughout France.
→ Prendre RDV pour une consultation droit du travail  |  → Browse all our legal articles

Informations juridiques

  • Numéro: 90-14.739
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 09 octobre 1991

Mots-clés

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier

Cas d'usage pratiques

1

Unfinished new villa: insurer rejects defect claim

Sophie, a first-time buyer in Aix-en-Provence, purchased a newly built villa for €420,000 in 2023. The builder left minor works incomplete (landscaping, touch-ups) and never convened a formal acceptance meeting. After a court-appointed expert's adversarial inspection in March 2024 identified waterproofing faults and cracks, her builder's insurer denied cover, arguing that without acceptance there was no insurance trigger.

Application pratique:

This case law confirms that a court can fix the date of acceptance (réception) at the time of the expert's report, not completion of works. Sophie should submit the expert's report to the insurer and, if refused, seek a court order to declare judicial acceptance at the date of that report. This compels the insurer to cover the defects, as they fall within the builder's decennial liability policy. She must act within the statutory limitation period from that judicial acceptance date to preserve her rights.

2

Rental block defects: insurer cites no acceptance

Jean, a landlord in Marseille, invested €600,000 in a new apartment block in 2022. After tenants moved in, serious damp problems emerged. An adversarial expert's report in January 2024 confirmed the defects were due to poor construction. The builder's insurer denied the claim, stating that no formal acceptance (réception) had ever taken place, so the policy was not engaged.

Application pratique:

Leveraging this case law, Jean can petition the court to set the acceptance date at the expert's report date. Once judicial acceptance is declared, the insurer must remedy the defects under the decennial liability cover, as the report proves they were present at that date. He should immediately gather all correspondence, the expert's report, and proof of notification to the insurer, then instruct a solicitor to file for judicial acceptance without delay to avoid time-barring.

3

Co-owners' common areas: builder's insurer refuses works

A co-ownership syndicate in Lyon's new résidence 'Les Jardins' discovered widespread leaks in the underground car park and façade issues in late 2023. An adversarial expert's report from May 2024 attributed these to construction faults. The developer's insurer refused to fund repairs, arguing that the common areas had never been formally accepted by the syndic, so no insurance obligation had arisen.

Application pratique:

Under this decision, the syndic can ask the court to fix judicial acceptance of the common areas at the date of the expert's report. This triggers the builder's insurer's duty to cover the defects. The syndic should pass a resolution at the next general meeting to authorise legal action, then present the expert's report as evidence of acceptance. Prompt action is vital: once judicial acceptance is set, the ten-year guarantee period runs from that date, so any delay risks forfeiting coverage.

Maître Cécile Zakine

À propos de l'auteur

Maître Cécile Zakine — Avocate au Barreau des Alpes-Maritimes, Docteur en Droit. Chaque article de ce magazine est rédigé à partir de l'analyse d'une décision de jurisprudence réelle, commentée et mise en perspective par les équipes de Maître Zakine.

Prendre rendez-vous →

Avertissement: Les analyses présentées sur ce site sont fournies à titre informatif uniquement et ne constituent pas des conseils juridiques personnalisés. Pour une consultation adaptée à votre situation, contactez un avocat.

★★★★★4.9/5 — Avis Google

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law

Phone and video consultations available — Fast appointments

Book an appointment
First consultation 30 minutes — €45

🔒 Confidentiel • Sans engagement • Réponse rapide