The roofer is not necessarily insured for all roofing work

This is the case of waterproofing work on a flat roof, ruled the Court of Cassation, because it is work that requires specific skills and is not necessarily guaranteed by insurance.

The nuance complicates the task of the client who may be an incompetent individual in this area and who must verify not only the existence of the roofer's ten-year insurance but also that his order for roofing work on a flat roof falls within the activities for which the contractor is competent and insured.

The matter becomes even more complicated when the insurance contract can allow this activity to be carried out as an ancillary activity on the site but not as a main activity.

The Court of Cassation has frequently held that the client, that is to say the owner of the building, who orders the work, must check before the start of the work that the ten-year insurance taken out by the contractor, which must be mentioned on the quotes and invoices, covers the work envisaged.

In this case, a couple, who had built a pavilion, complained of defects in the sealing of their flat bituminous roof which they had ordered from a roofing company. He then discovered that the roofer was not insured because the insurance for routine roofing work, which he had taken out, does not necessarily cover the "waterproofing" or "flat roofing" activity, which require special skills. .

(Cass. Civil 3, 30.3.2023, W 22-12.320).