From unsuitable accommodation to delayed flights, the Court of Cassation sides with holidaymakers

The hotelier must compensate the guest for the uninhabitable room, even if they have offered alternative accommodation that is nonetheless unsatisfactory. And the insurance company is obliged to cover the cost of the compensation even if the hotel owner is at fault for failing to carry out maintenance. The policy cannot, in fact, exclude compensation for a ruined holiday despite the serious negligence of the hotel owner. In the case of flight delays, on the other hand, the airline pays the lawyer engaged by the passenger to assert their right to include interest in the compensation.

The Court of Cassation issued two judgements yesterday, in which it reinforces the rights of holidaymakers and travellers in general. In the case of a hotel that failed to meet expectations, a couple who had chosen to spend their holidays in Roccaraso were in for the unpleasant surprise of finding themselves in a room with water leaks. They left the resort after realising that both the room and the alternative accommodation offered, after four days, were completely unsatisfactory. The trial judge had ruled that the insurance company was not obliged to indemnify the hotelier, who was solely responsible for the poor maintenance of the pipework. The Supreme Court takes a different view.

The judges of the Court of Cassation clarify, in fact, that ‘the conclusion of a civil liability insurance contract obliges the insurance company to indemnify the insured against any sums they are required to pay to third parties as a result of a negligent act attributed to them, without any distinction being made between liability arising from a tort and liability arising from a breach of contract’. Whereas the mere exclusion from insurance cover applies only to ‘damages arising from intentional acts, but certainly not those arising from negligence, even if due to gross negligence’.

The Court points out that civil liability insurance ‘ontologically presupposes fault on the part of the insured, understood as the attribution of the harmful event , as the basis for the obligation to compensate for the damage’. As regards fault, the insurance can be deemed inapplicable only if there is a specific agreement on this point.

In its second ruling, the Court of Cassation offers reassurance to passengers who have been subjected to exhausting waits due to delays and were then forced to instruct a solicitor to assert their right to compensation through out-of-court settlement. The Supreme Court specifies that these costs cannot be absorbed into the settlement of legal costs, nor can they be denied on the basis of a subsequent assessment of futility, as they constitute an separate component of actual damage.