What happened?
The plaintiff and the defendant insurance company had concluded a homeowner’s insurance contract that included coverage for damage caused by landslides. According to the insurance terms and conditions, a “landslide” is defined as a “naturally induced downward movement of soil and rock masses along a slip surface located beneath the natural surface.”
In 2018, following heavy rainfall, cracks began to form in the plaintiff’s residential building. These worsened significantly over time. The cause of the damage was identified as shallow and deep-seated downhill creep movements of the soil. These are extremely slow movements without clearly defined slip surfaces, progressing at only a few millimeters to centimeters per year. Similar damage occurred throughout the entire area.
The plaintiff demanded coverage from the defendant insurer, arguing that such damage qualified as a “landslide” within the meaning of the policy terms. The defendant denied coverage, stating that these slow creep movements did not constitute a “landslide” as defined in the policy.
The court of first instance ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the incident was indeed an insured landslide. However, the appellate court overturned this decision and dismissed the claim, reasoning that the slow and not immediately perceptible ground movement did not meet the policy’s definition of a landslide.
The plaintiff filed an appeal (Revision) with the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH).
How did the OGH rule?
The plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed, thereby upholding the appellate court’s decision.
The Supreme Court clarified that the term “landslide,” as defined in the policy (“naturally induced downward movement of soil and rock masses along a slip surface located beneath the natural surface”), implies a certain degree of dynamic movement and sensory perceptibility.
In the case at hand, however, the soil movements were merely very slow creep processes, progressing only a few millimeters to centimeters per year and not visually perceptible. Such gradual movements do not fall under the definition of “landslide.” A reasonable policyholder would not interpret such barely perceptible movements as a landslide, since they lack the characteristic dynamics typically associated with a landslide.
As this requirement was not met, the OGH concluded that no insured landslide had occurred. The insurer was therefore not obligated to cover the damage, and the plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed.
(Decision 7 Ob 189/24f of 29 January 2025)
If you have any questions regarding civil law or need assistance in asserting or defending claims, I am happy to advise and support you.
