This is a true story which highlights the need for "Dommage-Ouvrage" insurance, the names have been changed but the facts have not.

Tim and his wife bought a 200 year-old Provencal farm house in a delightful hillside setting. It was too small and they decided to add a 2-storey extension which would have a double garage below and guest accommodation above. A local architect prepared the plans and obtained the necessary permission. Because Tim had no experience in building he retained the architect to manage the building project.

The farmhouse was set into the hillside and the first step in building the extension, therefore, was to dig back into the hillside to create a level platform alongside the farmhouse. A breeze-block wall was erected at the back of the platform.

It started raining and work on the site stopped. It rained torrentially, as is often the case in Provence, and then a catastrophe - the recently-disturbed and water-logged ground behind the extension collapsed taking the extension and part of the farmhouse with it.

If only someone had thought to protected the exposed hillside with a large tarpaulin this calamity would have been avoided - but whose responsibility was it?

For a variety of reasons, Tim had not taken out D-O insurance, but he believed that since it was quite clearly caused by the new-build and because all the entrepreneurs were reputable businesses with their own 10-year or "decennale" insurance the problem would soon be resolved.

The first issue was to establish which insurance company to claim against. Tim thought the architect was responsible because he was managing the whole project and should have foreseen the problem and taken steps to avoid it. But the architect's insurers did not agree and felt it was the JCB earth-mover driver who had actually created the problem and done nothing to ensure that the land would not slip. The JCB driver had not paid his decennale insurance premium and was not very happy to find the finger being pointed at him personally. He said he was acting under instructions from the builder and since the builder has erected the walls of the extension the problem was that they were obviously not strong enough to support the weight of the earth behind.

The builder said that the concrete had not set properly when the rain started and the walls collapsed but, if they were not strong enough, this was the architect's fault as he had specified how they should be built and had overseen their construction.

Tim, frustrated that weeks later there was still no agreement or progress on the extension, hired a lawyer and went to Court. Each insurance company then sent an expert to Tim's house to give their opinion on the cause of the problem and also their opinion on how it should be solved. Although the experts could agree the cause (which was obvious) they could not agree the solution.

Tim wanted to get back to work on the extension - even if he had to pay for the repairs while the Court decided who was responsible - but he couldn't do this until there was a decision on how to rectify the problem. The insurance companies felt the Court should decide which expert had the correct solution - so it it would be months before work could recommence on the extension.

The Court eventually made its decision on which expert's advice to follow but did not make any decision as to who was responsible for the catastrophe. This meant that Tim would have to pay for all the remedial work before work on the extension could start again. Over a year had been lost and although Tim would eventually, be able to get back all of the costs plus the damages it would be over 3 years before the claim would be finally settled.

Had Tim taken D-O insurance all these costs would have been paid directly by his insurance company and work would have re-started on the extension after only a very short delay.