Bank fails to activate Home insurance — lack of causation defeats liability claimBanco omite activar póliza Hogar Seguro — falta de nexo causal impide condena

PROCESS OF COGNITION CASE FILE No. 11-0003488-1027-CA PLAINTIFF: Nombre112966 DEFENDANT: INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE SEGUROS JUDGMENT No. 33 -2014-V CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL TREASURY TRIBUNAL. SECTION FIVE. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ, GOICOECHEA. ANNEX A.- At ten hours thirty minutes on the twenty-second of May of the year two thousand fourteen.- Process of cognition initiated by Nombre112966 , of legal age, married, upholsterer, resident of San Antonio de Coronado, identity card CED89417, (f.13), grants special power of attorney to Licenciado Baudilio Morales Monroy, of legal age, attorney, identity card CED89418 against: Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, represented by its general judicial attorney, licenciada María Isabel Bonilla Herrera, of legal age, attorney, resident of Cartago, identity card CED89419 (f.285).

WHEREAS:

1 .- That on June 21, 2011, based on the facts set forth and legal citations adduced, in this matter, the plaintiff indicated that he was formulating the following claim, which is transcribed literally: "1. I respectfully request that this lawsuit be processed and granted. 2. Likewise, I REQUEST that the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica be ordered to cancel the full amount covered by the Hogar Seguro 2000 policy No. 118 INC 00036500 in my name and for banking operation concept 53-1-30395479 for  11,932,884.57 and its interest until effective payment from the filing of this Action. 3. That in the judgment of this respectable jurisdiction the defendant be condemned to pay DAMAGES AND PREJUDICES, which if found in my favor will be specified in the corresponding proceeding, as well as the payment of procedural and personal costs." (Folio 8 of the judicial case file). In response to the resolution at 9:49 hours, on July 5, 2011, in which the Processing Judge requested clarifications to his lawsuit, the plaintiff, in relation to his claim for damages, indicated the following: "1. Of the damages: Moral Damage: 1.1 OF THE MORAL DAMAGE, I value it at 5,000,000.oo, and it consists of the reparation of my suffering and that of my family, not only for the insecurity and anxiety in which we have had to live all this time with the house declared uninhabitable by Public Health, causing us much discomfort to myself and the rest of my family, my unease, my disquiet and grievance, suffered as a result of being left unprotected by the insurance that in law corresponds to me. The weakening of my state of mind, which has come to the detriment of my natural and normal behavior, which has been a great suffering for my wife and my children, can never be ignored. 1.2 Of the prejudices: That in your Resolution the payment of the interest on what in Law corresponds to me be ordered, from the date of Resolution 2010015402 of the Constitutional Chamber whereby my Amparo Appeal is granted or, failing that, from the presentation of this Enforcement until its effective payment" (folios 258 and 259 of the judicial case file). In the preliminary hearing during the analysis of claims, the plaintiff withdrew his request related to the resolution of the Constitutional Chamber (folio 300 of the judicial case file and audiovisual record of the preliminary hearing).

2.- That on October 3, 2011, Banco Nacional de Costa Rica responded negatively to the lawsuit, and filed the exceptions (excepciones) of lack of right (falta de derecho), lack of active and passive legal standing (falta de legitimación activa y pasiva), act of a third party (hecho de un tercero), and necessary passive joinder of parties (litis consorcio pasivo necesario) (folio 90, reverse side of the judicial case file).

3.- That on July 16, 2012, the Processing Judge Gustavo Irías Obando dismissed the exception of lack of necessary passive joinder of parties (folio 128 of the judicial case file).

4.- On January 8, 2013, the preliminary hearing was held; the Processing Judge Billy Araya Olmos suspended said hearing in order to admit as evidence for better resolution a judgment from the Constitutional Chamber (folio 300 of the judicial case file and digital record).

5.- That on April 16, 2013, the preliminary hearing was continued (audiovisual record of the trial and folio 326 of the administrative file).

6.- That on August 19, 2013, the oral and public trial was held; the representative of Banco Nacional again presented the exception of necessary passive joinder of parties. The Tribunal dismissed said exception, by means of resolution 83-2012. Despite the foregoing, it ordered a suspension, because the defendant stated that it was going to file an appeal (folio 338 of the judicial case file and audiovisual record of the trial) 7.- That on August 21, 2013, the representative of Banco Nacional filed an appeal against the decision of the Tribunal, in resolution 83-2012 (folio 342 of the judicial case file).

8.- That on November 27, 2013, the Court of Appeals confirmed resolution 83-2012 of the Tribunal (folios 348 of the judicial case file).

9.- That the oral and public trial was held again on May 6, 2014 (audiovisual record of the trial and minutes).

10.- In the proceedings, the terms and legal prescriptions have been observed, and no defects or omissions capable of producing nullity or defenselessness to the parties are noted. This ruling is issued within the period indicated in numeral 111, subsection 1, of the Contencioso-Administrativo Procedural Code, hereinafter CPCA, after deliberation and unanimously.- Drafted by the Reporting Judge Mena García; with the affirmative vote of Judge Vargas Vargas and Judge Mesén García and;

WHEREAS:

I.-PROVEN FACTS: Of importance for the resolution of this matter, the following are deemed as such: 1) That on July 18, 2007, in the work order for processing in CIPAC-GAM, related to the general information of the plaintiff's loan with the defendant Bank, the following is indicated: "the fire insurance policy (póliza de incendio) of the loan in UDS is transferred and if necessary the coverage is increased". (Folio 87 of the judicial case file and 19 of the administrative file). 2) That on August 16, 2007, the plaintiff and the defendant Bank appeared before notary Ananías Matamoros Carvajal, for the purpose of canceling a first-degree mortgage that encumbered the property of the San José district, registration number Placa20575. At the same time, the plaintiff again constituted himself as debtor for the sum of  12,300,000 (twelve million three hundred thousand colones). In the executed document, the clause referring to Insurance states the following: "CONSTITUTION AND PAYMENT OF INSURANCE: The debtor party expressly and irrevocably agrees to insure the loan granted as a guarantee of this document during the agreed term; with a fire and earthquake policy Hogar Seguro Dos Mil, with the coverages inherent to its risk, be it A, B, C, and D, and insurance against inflation of twenty percent of the PCI, MAINTAINING in force and related to this loan policy number zero one one eight INC zero zero three zero three six five zero zero, up to the current value of the existing constructions on the property given as guarantee, that is, the sum of eleven million six hundred ninety-four thousand four hundred five colones and with the policies that are required by the creditor, issued by the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, through the Comercializadora de Seguros del Banco Nacional. In said policy, the debtor party shall designate the creditor as assignee or beneficiary. Likewise, the debtor party is obliged to maintain this insurance in force until the maturity or total payment of this obligation and agrees to keep the bank informed, by suitable means, of the periodic renewals of the insurance that it makes, it being understood that non-observance of these conditions will give the bank the right to declare the obligation mature and demand it judicially in its entirety. Equally, the debtor party authorizes the creditor to increase, when it deems it appropriate, the amount of the installment stipulated herein to apply to the payment of the renewal premium and the adjustments that originate an increase in the INS rates or increases in the real effective value of the assets, based on the updated inspection of the assets, their real value, established by the bank's experts or by an increase expressly requested by the debtor party. Furthermore, the debtor party authorizes the creditor so that, in the event of default or omission, it may proceed in its name to renew and pay the respective insurances, proceeding to reimburse the sum paid plus the corresponding proportional interest from the date of disbursement by the bank, until the date of effective payment on the debtor's behalf, calculated at the same interest rate that governs this loan at the time said payment is made." (Folio 97 of the judicial case file). 3) That on August 21, 2007, as recorded in a document related to the deductions applied to the amount of the loan granted to the plaintiff, the defendant Bank deducted the sum of  33,000 (thirty-three thousand colones) for insurance concept (folio 18 of the administrative file and 88 of the judicial case file). 4) That on December 5, 2007, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Condominio Residencial San Antonio and CCN Desarrollos Habitacionales Sociedad Anónima, for the damages suffered in his dwelling house, registration folio real number Placa20576, . Said detriments were described by the plaintiff in his lawsuit as follows: "Repair of fissures in internal walls, fissures in external walls, fissures in floors of the living room, dining room, rooms, Support Columns, Bathroom, potable water pipes, sewage pipes, waters from the bathroom, washbasin, sink, and/or other damages that the requested expert may determine..." (Folio 19 of the copy of case file 07-001446-0164-CA). 5) That on October 2, 2008, by means of official letter DSA-230-542, Mr. Alfredo Zeledón Noguera, from the Department of Environmental Sanitation, addressed an official letter to Doctor Andrea Morales, in her capacity as Director of the Health Area of Coronado, by which he indicated the following: "In response to the reference, I allow myself to forward to you a copy of the Technical Report DPM-INF-2113-2007, signed by geologist Dione Barahona Oviedo, an official of the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Attention to Natural Disasters (Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Desastres Naturales, CNE). As was confirmed during the inspection carried out today, the construction cannot be defined as habitable due to the existing structural damages in the same. At the same time, I inform you that this building has already been assessed on two occasions by officials of the Municipal Corporation. Until the necessary works for its habitability are carried out, it is the undersigned's opinion that the dwelling must be vacated, given the imminent danger that looms over the lives of its inhabitants." (Folio 50 of the administrative file). 6) That on October 7, 2008, Mrs. Grace Arias Morera, signed the sanitary order No. 044-08 UPAH, by which she ordered the plaintiff to vacate his dwelling, it having been declared uninhabitable, as dangerous (folio 51 of the administrative file). 7) That on May 17, 2010, the plaintiff presented the following declaration to the Instituto Nacional de Seguros: "I DECLARE THAT: On 05/13/2010 at 07:15 PM -approximately- a seismic event occurred. (Latest tremors witnessed) In the indicated dwelling, according to my best knowledge and belief, it was originated by earthquake damage" (folio 44 of the judicial case file). 8) That on May 25, 2010, by means of official letter INSSJ-05820-2010, signed by Licenciada Ligia Rees Blanco, addressed to the plaintiff, she indicated the following: "We refer to the claim in the reference, opened in your name, for an event that occurred on May 13 of the current year. In this regard, it is important to indicate what is stipulated in the General Conditions for the Hogar Seguro 2000 policy, regarding the granting of coverage: 'The Institute will indemnify the Insured for the direct and immediate loss suffered by the insured assets (...) provided they have been included in the contract in accordance with what is stipulated in the Specific Conditions, and the premium that attests to the protection has been paid.' According to our records, on the date of the event the indicated policy was not in force, because it stopped being paid since the year 2006. The foregoing makes it impossible for the Institute to make the requested indemnification. Based on the above, we are obliged to proceed with the declination of the case and the archiving of the file." (Folio 45 of the judicial case file). 9) That on June 9, 2010, the Credit Manager of the Coronado Branch of the defendant entity, Mr. Víctor Gutiérrez Morúa, addressed an unnumbered official letter to the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, in which he requested the activation of the Hogar Seguro 2000 policy, in favor of the plaintiff. As he explains, "the situation that arose in the year 2006 when Mr. Nombre112966 restructured his debt with the Bank and the policy was left inactive by mistake" (folio 46 of the judicial case file). 10) That on June 24, 2010, by means of judgment No. 189-10, the Civil Court of the II Judicial Circuit of San José, in process 07-0014446-0164-CI, decided the following: "THEREFORE: The exceptions of lack of right, and lack of legal standing in its passive form are dismissed. The present ordinary lawsuit filed by Nombre112966 , and Nombre112967 , against CONDOMINIO VERTICAL RESIDENCIAL SAN ANTONIO, and CNN DESARROLLOS HABITACIONALES SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA is hereby granted. It is declared that: a) The property Public Registry of Property, San José District, registration folio real number Placa20575 , has suffered material damages, as a result of the earthworks (movilización de tierras) carried out by the defendant company CNN DESARROLLOS HABITACIONALES SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, a company that should have built a retaining wall. The defendants must pay the sum of THIRTY-FOUR MILLION NINE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR COLONES, which is equivalent to the value of the house destroyed by the earthworks. The defendants must also build a retaining wall with all the technical specifications to guarantee that the process of land undermining of the plaintiffs' property stops. The defendant party is granted a period of one month to build the respective retaining wall, under the warning that if it fails to do so, the court will authorize the prevailing party to do what the judgment orders, at the expense of the defeated party, who must also pay the damages and prejudices produced by their inertia. The granted period begins to run from the firmness of this resolution. The monetary sum granted shall accrue legal interest calculated in accordance with article 1163 of the Civil Code, from the date on which this resolution becomes firm and until its effective payment. Both costs are to be borne by the defendant party" (folio 430 of the copy of case file 07-001446-0164-CI). 11) That on October 27, 2010, the Second Civil Tribunal, First Section, by means of judgment No. 311, confirmed the first instance judgment No. 189-10, of the Civil Court of the II Judicial Circuit of San José, in process 07-0014446-0164-CI (folio 359 of the copy of case file 07-001446-0164-CI). 12) That on January 13, 2011, the Manager of the Coronado Branch, Mr. Luis Fernando Henderson García, by means of official letter SC053-001-2011, communicated to the plaintiff the conclusions of the report from the Legal Directorate, which analyzed his case, in official letter Nombre112493. /034-2011, of December 10, 2011. In the conclusions of the report, it is indicated that in the year 2007, the plaintiff submitted a loan application, whose investment plan was to transfer the balance of the operation in development units to colones and an additional request for money to make improvements to his dwelling. Although the processing indicated that the fire insurance policy of the loan in development units was being transferred, by mistake it was not done (folio 71 of the judicial case file). 13) That on March 17, 2011, by means of judgment No. 000292-A-S1-2011, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the cassation appeal filed by CCNN Desarrollos Habitacionales, against judgment No. 311, of the Second Civil Tribunal, First Section (folio 439 of case file 07-001446-0164-CI), II.-UNPROVEN FACTS: Of importance for resolving this case: 1) That as a consequence of the action and force of nature, a product of seismic movements, during the year 2008, the plaintiff's house suffered serious damages, consisting of: sunken and cracked foundations, uneven, deformed and cracked beams and columns, sunken and cracked floors and mezzanines, burst walls, burst sanitary services and walls, septic tank with leaks and about to collapse, drainage with outcrops, manholes, cesspool and traps with leaks (there is no evidence in the case file records) III.-CLAIM FORMULATED BY THE PLAINTIFF. In essence, the plaintiff states that he canceled a first-degree mortgage with the defendant Bank and constituted himself as a first-degree mortgage debtor of the defendant for the sum of 12,300,000. He adduces that he took out a fire and earthquake policy Hogar Seguro, under the risk coverage modalities A, B, C, AND D. He indicates that he paid the sum  33,000, to be in compliance with the insurance and in this way guarantee its eventual payment. According to his criterion, the Bank should have transferred the matter to the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, thereby violating the inter-institutional due process. He adds that to access the loan, the defendant entity should have assessed the condition of his dwelling, which it did, determining a value of  17,581,345.oo, which was verified by the Manager and signed on August 8, 2007. He mentions that due to the seismic movements of the year 2010, his house suffered serious damages, which affected the foundations, beams, floors, mezzanines, walls, sanitary services, manholes, etc. For this reason, the Ministry of Health declared the property uninhabitable. He states that he subsequently requested the payment of the policy from the Instituto Nacional de Seguros to repair his house. He indicates that said insurer rejected his action, by virtue of the fact that, as he asserts, the Bank did not transfer the effective payment of the premium, with which, as he argues, the INS-BANCO inter-institutional due process and principle of legality were violated. He adds that the Bank requested the reactivation of the Hogar Seguro policy, however, the Bank's action was not accepted. He adds that the Legal Directorate of the Institute indicated that the responsibility lay with the Bank.

IV.- ARGUMENT OF THE DEFENDANT PARTY. Fundamentally, the defendant Bank states that although it is true, when constituting the loan, the obligation to transfer the fire insurance to the new loan was established and the premium of 33,000 colones was deducted, due to a system error the insurance for the loan was neither activated nor transferred, nor was any monthly installment deducted as was appropriate. Despite the foregoing, it considers that this error does not create a right. It affirms that the damages to the plaintiff's dwelling are not due to acts of nature, but to those carried out by third parties.

V.-OBJECT OF THE PROCESS. From what was expressed by the parties, both in their claims and arguments, this is a civil treasury process, by which the plaintiff seeks that the defendant Bank assume the cancellation of the policy he took out, so that the damages suffered by his dwelling due to supposed seismic movements are covered. Likewise, he seeks the recognition of moral damage.

VI.- REGARDING THE SPECIFIC CASE. The plaintiff appears before this court to seek the liability of the defendant banking entity, attributing to it an omission, consisting of not having transferred to the Instituto Nacional de Seguros the payment of the premium for the policy that covered his property given as guarantee for the granted loan. He alleges that due to seismic movements during the year 2010, his house suffered serious damages. He affirms that upon presenting the claim to the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, it declined payment, by virtue of the defendant's omission. For its part, the defendant entity in its defense acknowledges the error, however, it considers that it cannot create a right, since the subsequent payments were not made. It also alleges the eximent act of a third party, as it accuses that the damages suffered by the plaintiff's property are not due to seismic movements, but to earthworks (movimientos de tierra) made by a company. To this effect, it refers to the judicial process that the plaintiff initiated against a company in the year 2007. To resolve this case, it is necessary to mention the scheme of strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) that governs administrative conducts. Said system is found in the General Law of Public Administration, starting from articles 190 and following. This system has its basis in the Political Constitution, in articles 9, 41 and 194 among others. In accordance with Law No. 6227, previously mentioned, the convergence of each and every one of the components of the scheme is required to establish the liability of the Administration. Thus, the conduct that is attributed must be lawful, unlawful, normal, or abnormal. In turn, there must be damage, which is real, effective, assessable, and individualizable (article 196). Furthermore, there must be a causal link (nexo de causalidad) between the attributed conduct and the damage. Once the applicable legal framework and its components have been outlined, the appropriate course is to analyze the specific case to determine if the omission accused of the defendant leads to the extra-contractual liability of the Administration. According to the list of proven facts, it is not disputed that Banco Nacional, when granting a loan to the plaintiff, requested a fire and earthquake policy, called Hogar Seguro Dos Mil (proven fact No. 2). Nor is it disputed that the respondent Bank applied the deduction of the premium for this insurance (proven fact No. 3), however, it kept the policy inactive by mistake (proven fact No. 9). For this reason, when the plaintiff filed a claim with the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, to make said policy effective, for supposed seismic movements that occurred in the year 2010, the insurer declined, arguing the following: " In this regard, it is important to indicate what is stipulated in the General Conditions for the Hogar Seguro 2000 policy, regarding the granting of coverage: 'The Institute will indemnify the Insured for the direct and immediate loss suffered by the insured assets (...) provided they have been included in the contract in accordance with what is stipulated in the Specific Conditions, and the premium that attests to the protection has been paid.' According to our records, on the date of the event the indicated policy was not in force, because it stopped being paid since the year 2006. The foregoing makes it impossible for the Institute to make the requested indemnification. Based on the above, we are obliged to proceed with the declination of the case and the archiving of the file." (Proven fact No. 8). In the theory of the case that the plaintiff posits, the Bank's conduct and the immediate consequence, which consisted of the declination by the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, obliges it to compensate under the aforementioned liability scheme. In the present case, it is observed that the insurer Institute did not proceed to assess the merits of the matter, that is, whether the claimed damages were actually due to any seismic movement, given that this was one of the fundamental factual assumptions for the policy to operate. Thus, to comply with the postulates of strict liability of the Administration, this aspect must be duly accredited in this court, since without this essential element, which is known as the causal link, it is impossible to decree administrative liability. While it is possible to qualify the Bank's conduct as abnormal, as well as to visualize the damage, in the impossibility of making the policy effective, the truth is that it is the plaintiff's duty to accredit in this court the causal link of that conduct with the damage. For these purposes, he had to demonstrate that the damages to his dwelling were caused by seismic movements. Regrettably, the case file contains only the plaintiff's statement. Consequently, this transcendental fact has not been accredited. Upon contrasting this evidentiary insufficiency with judicial case file 07-001446-0164-CI and the actions found therein, the Tribunal has doubts about the veracity of the direct cause of the damages that the plaintiff claims in his dwelling. To these effects, it must be noted that in the year 2007, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against two parties, one of which was a construction company that carried out earthworks that produced damages very similar to those that the plaintiff has been alleging in his property. Within that judicial process, there was a conviction to repair the damages caused in favor of the plaintiff. The first instance judgment was confirmed by the superior, and furthermore, the extraordinary cassation appeal was dismissed. Having not provided proof of his statement, as is the duty of the party filing a lawsuit, in accordance with the provisions of article 317 of the Civil Procedural Code, applied supplementarily, pursuant to article 220 of the Contencioso-Administrativo Procedural Code, and, there being evidence provided by the defendant that casts doubt on the origin of the damages, this Tribunal is unable to grant the plaintiff's claims. The foregoing, because, as is reiterated, it is essential to demonstrate, for indemnification purposes, that the plaintiff met the factual assumptions of the policy called Hogar Seguro Dos Mil, one of which was that the damages occurring to the covered asset were produced by seismic movements. Still in relation to this topic, the Tribunal cannot overlook the contradiction it has found with this matter of the supposed seismic movements, because in the fourth fact of his lawsuit he affirms that the seismic movements occurred in the year 2008. On the other hand, according to the examined evidence, concretely, the claim before the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, the earthquake that caused the damages was from the year 2010. This inconsistency further increases the doubt that the Tribunal has maintained, in relation to the veracity of the origin of the damages to the plaintiff's dwelling, which would allow him to be placed within the factual indemnification assumption of the policy. In accordance with all the foregoing, it is the unanimous opinion of this Tribunal that the lawsuit must be dismissed and the exception of lack of right upheld. With respect to the exception of act of a third party, it is dismissed, given that technically it is not an individual exception, as it is encompassed within the lack of right alleged, since it comprises the normative legal analysis of the merits, which has already been analyzed in this section.

VIII.-REGARDING THE EXCEPTIONS. The exception of lack of active and passive legal standing is dismissed, by virtue of the fact that there exists a legal relationship between the defendant Bank and the plaintiff, resulting from a loan contract, which allows him to direct his claims against it, such that he has sufficient active legal standing. For its part, the banking entity has sufficient legal standing to be the passive party. The exception of lack of right is upheld, in accordance with what was stated in the preceding whereas clause. The exception of act of a third party is dismissed, in accordance with what was previously stated.

VIII.-REGARDING THE COSTS. In accordance with the provisions of article 193 of the Contencioso-Administrativo Procedural Code, the Tribunal finds no reason whatsoever to exonerate the plaintiff from the payment of costs. The payment thereof is imposed on the plaintiff.

THEREFORE

The exception of lack of active and passive legal standing is dismissed, as well as that of act of a third party. The exception of lack of right is upheld. The lawsuit initiated by Mr. Nombre112966 against Banco Nacional is dismissed. The plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendant's costs. Notify.

Sergio Mena García Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas Luis Eduardo Mesén García 3 11-0003488-1027-CA **PLAINTIFF: Nombre112966** **DEFENDANT: INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE SEGUROS** **JUDGMENT No. 33 -2014-V** **CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL TREASURY TRIBUNAL. FIFTH SECTION. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ, GOICOECHEA. ANNEX A.-** At ten thirty hours on the twenty-second of May of the year two thousand fourteen.- Ordinary proceeding filed by **Nombre112966**, of legal age, married, upholsterer, resident of San Antonio de Coronado, identity card CED89417, (f.13), grants special power of attorney to Licentiate **Baudilio Morales Monroy**, of legal age, attorney, identity card CED89418 **against:** the **Banco Nacional de Costa Rica**, represented by its general judicial attorney-in-fact, Licentiate **María Isabel Bonilla Herrera**, of legal age, attorney, resident of Cartago, identity card CED89419 (f.285).

**WHEREAS:** **1 .-** That on **June 21, 2011**, based on the facts set forth and legal citations adduced, in this matter, the plaintiff stated that he was formulating the following claim, which is transcribed verbatim: "*1. I respectfully request that this complaint be processed and granted. 2. Likewise, I REQUEST that the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica be ordered to pay the total amount covered by policy* *Hogar Seguro 2000 No. 118 INC 00036500 in my name and for banking operation 53-1-30395479 for*  11.932.884.57 and its interest until effective payment from the filing of this Action. 3. That in the judgment of this respectable jurisdiction, the defendant be condemned to pay DAMAGES AND LOSSES, which, if they favor me, shall be specified in the corresponding proceeding, as well as the payment of procedural and personal costs." (Folio 8 of the judicial file). In response to the resolution of 9:49 hours, on July 5, 2011, in which the Case Management Judge requested clarifications to his complaint, the plaintiff, regarding his claim for damages, stated the following: "1. *Of the damages: Moral Damage:* *1.1 OF MORAL DAMAGE, I value it at 5.000.000.oo,* *and it consists of the reparation for my suffering and that of my family, not only for the insecurity and anxiety in which we have had to live all this time with the house declared uninhabitable by Public health, causing much discomfort to me and the rest of my family, my restlessness, my unease, and grievance, suffered as a result of being left helpless by the insurance that rightfully belongs to me. The weakening of my state of mind, which has diminished my natural and normal behavior, which has been of much suffering for my wife and children, can never be ignored. 1.2* *Of the losses:* That in your Resolution, the payment of interest on what rightfully belongs to me be ordered, from the date of Resolution 2010015402 of the Constitutional Chamber by which my Amparo Appeal was granted or, failing that, from the presentation of this Executory Action until its effective payment" (folios 258 and 259 of the judicial file). At the preliminary hearing, in the analysis of claims, the plaintiff withdrew his petition related to the resolution of the Constitutional Chamber (folio 300 of the judicial file and audiovisual record of the preliminary hearing).

**2.-** That on **October 3, 2011**, the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, answered the complaint negatively, and filed the defenses of lack of right, lack of active and passive standing, act of a third party, and necessary passive joinder of parties (folio 90 verso of the judicial file).

**3.-** That on **July 16, 2012**, the Case Management Judge Gustavo Irías Obando, rejected the defense of lack of necessary passive joinder of parties (folio 128 of the judicial file).

**4.-** On **January 8, 2013**, the preliminary hearing was held; the Case Management Judge Billy Araya Olmos, suspended said hearing to take as evidence for a better decision a judgment from the Constitutional Chamber (folio 300 of the judicial file and digital record).

**5.-** That on **April 16, 2013**, the preliminary hearing was continued (audiovisual record of the trial and folio 326 of the administrative file).

**6.-** That on **August 19, 2013**, the oral and public trial was held; the representative of the Banco Nacional again presented the defense of necessary passive joinder of parties. The Tribunal rejected said defense, through resolution 83-2012. Despite the foregoing, it ordered a suspension, because the defendant stated that she was going to file an appeal (folio 338 of the judicial file and audiovisual record of the trial).

**7.-** That on **August 21, 2013**, the representative of the Banco Nacional filed an appeal against the Tribunal's decision in resolution 83-2012 (folio 342 of the judicial file).

**8.-** That on **November 27, 2013**, the Appeals Tribunal confirmed resolution 83-2012 of the Tribunal (folio 348 of the judicial file).

**9.-** That the oral and public trial was held again on **May 6, 2014** (audiovisual record of the trial and minutes).

**10.-** In the proceedings, the terms and prescriptions of law have been observed, and no defects or omissions susceptible of producing nullity or defenselessness to the parties are noted. This ruling is issued within the period indicated in numeral 111, subsection 1, of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, hereinafter CPCA, after deliberation and unanimously.- Drafted by the Rapporteur Judge Mena García; with the affirmative vote of Judge Vargas Vargas and Judge Mesén García and; **WHEREAS:** **I.-PROVEN FACTS:** Of importance for the resolution of this matter, the following are considered as such: **1)** That on **July 18, 2007,** in the work order for processing in CIPAC-GAM, regarding the general information of the plaintiff's credit with the defendant Bank, the following is stated: "*the fire policy of the credit in UDS is transferred and if necessary the coverage is increased*". (Folio 87 of the judicial file and 19 of the administrative file). **2)** That on **August 16, 2007**, the plaintiff and the defendant Bank appeared before notary Ananías Matamoros Carvajal, for the purpose of canceling a first-degree mortgage that encumbered the property of the San José district, registration number Placa20575. At the same time, the plaintiff became a debtor again for the sum of  12.300.000 (twelve million three hundred thousand colones). In the signed document, the clause referring to Insurance stipulates the following: "*CONSTITUTION AND PAYMENT OF INSURANCES* *: The debtor party expressly and irrevocably undertakes to insure the credit granted as guarantee of this document during the agreed term; with a* *fire and earthquake policy Hogar Seguro Dos Mil* *, with the coverages inherent to its risk, being A, B, C, and D, and insurance against inflation of twenty percent of the PCI, KEEPING policy number zero one one eight INC zero zero three zero three six five zero zero current and related to this credit, up to the present value of the existing constructions on the property given as guarantee, being the sum of eleven million six hundred ninety-four thousand four hundred five colones and with the policies that are required by the creditor, issued by the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, through the Comercializadora de Seguros del Banco Nacional. In said policy, the debtor party shall designate the creditor as assignee or beneficiary. Likewise, the debtor party undertakes to keep said insurance current until the expiration or full payment of this obligation and undertakes to keep the bank informed, through suitable means, of the periodic renewals made of the insurance, it being understood that non-observance of these conditions shall give the bank the right to deem the obligation matured and demand it judicially in its entirety. Equally, the debtor party authorizes the creditor to increase, when it deems it opportune, the amount of the installment stipulated herein to apply to the payment of the renewal premium and the adjustments that originate an increase in INS tariffs or increases in the actual effective value of the assets, based on the updated inspection of the assets* * their real value, established by the bank's appraisers or by an increase expressly requested by the debtor party. Furthermore, the debtor party authorizes the creditor so that, in case of default or omission, it may proceed in his name to renew and pay the respective insurances, proceeding to reimburse him the sum paid plus the corresponding proportional interest from the date of disbursement by the bank, until the date of effective payment on behalf of the debtor, calculated at the same interest rate that governs this credit at the time said payment is made." (Folio 97 of the judicial file). **3)** That on **August 21, 2007**, as stated in the document related to the deductions applied to the amount of the credit granted to the plaintiff, the defendant Bank deducted the sum of  33.000 (thirty-three thousand colones) for insurance (folio 18 of the administrative file and 88 of the judicial file). **4)** That on **December 5, 2007**, the plaintiff filed a complaint against Condominio Residencial San Antonio and CCN Desarrollos Habitacionales Sociedad Anónima, for the damages suffered in his dwelling house, registered real folio number Placa20576. The plaintiff described said damages in his complaint as follows: "*Repair of fissures in interior walls, fissures in exterior walls, fissures in the floors of the living room, dining room, bedrooms, Support Columns, Bathroom, potable water pipes, sewage pipes, bathroom sink pipes, kitchen sink pipes, and/or other damages that the requested expert can determine...*" (Folio 19 of the copy of file 07-001446-0164-CA). **5)** That on **October 2, 2008**, through official communication DSA-230-542, Mr. Alfredo Zeledón Noguera, of the Department of Environmental Sanitation, addressed an official communication to Doctor Andrea Morales, in her capacity as Director of the Health Area of Coronado, indicating the following: "*In response to the reference, I allow myself to send to you a copy of the Technical Report DPM-INF-2113-2007, signed by geologist Dione Barahona Oviedo, an official of the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Desastres Naturales (CNE). As could be verified during the inspection carried out today, the construction cannot be defined as habitable due to the existing structural damages in the same. At the same time, I inform you that this building has already been assessed on two occasions by officials of the Corporación Municipal. Until the necessary works for its habitability are carried out, it is the criterion of the undersigned that the dwelling must be vacated, given the imminent danger that hangs over the lives of its inhabitants.*" (Folio 50 of the administrative file). **6)** That on **October 7, 2008**, Mrs. Grace Arias Morera, signed sanitary order No. 044-08 UPAH, whereby she ordered the plaintiff to vacate his dwelling, it having been declared uninhabitable, as dangerous (folio 51 of the administrative file). **7)** That on **May 17, 2010,** the plaintiff presented before the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, the following statement: "*I DECLARE THAT: On 05/13/2010 at 07:15 PM -approximately- a loss occurred due to an earthquake. (Latest tremors witnessed) In the indicated dwelling house, according to my best knowledge and belief, it was caused by earthquake damage* " (folio 44 of the judicial file). **8)** That on **May 25, 2010**, through official communication INSSJ-05820-2010, signed by Licentiate Ligia Rees Blanco, addressed to the plaintiff, she indicated the following: "*We refer to the claim in the reference, opened in your name, for an event that occurred on May 13 of the current year.* In this regard, it is important to indicate what is stipulated in the General Conditions for the Hogar Seguro 2000 policy, regarding the granting of coverage: "The Institute shall indemnify the Insured for the direct and immediate loss suffered by the insured property (...) provided that they have been included in the contract in accordance with the stipulations in the Specific Conditions, and the premium that accredits the protection has been paid." According to our records, as of the date of the event the indicated policy was not in force, because payment ceased in the year 2006. The foregoing makes it impossible for the Institute to make the requested indemnification. Based on the foregoing, we are obligated to proceed with the declination of the case and the archiving of the file." (Folio 45 of the judicial file). 9) That on June 9, 2010, the Credit Manager of the Coronado Branch of the defendant entity, Mr. Víctor Gutiérrez Morúa, sent an unnumbered official letter to the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, in which he requested the activation of the Hogar Seguro 2000 policy, in favor of the plaintiff. According to his explanation, "the situation that arose in 2006 when Mr. Nombre112966 made an adjustment to his debt with the Bank and the policy was left inactive by mistake" (folio 46 of the judicial file). 10) That on June 24, 2010, by judgment no. 189-10, the Civil Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, in process 07-0014446-0164-CI, resolved the following: "THEREFORE: The defenses of lack of right and lack of standing in its passive form are rejected. The present ordinary lawsuit filed by Nombre112966 and Nombre112967 against CONDOMINIO VERTICAL RESIDENCIAL SAN ANTONIO, and CNN DESARROLLOS HABITACIONALES SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA is declared with merit. It is declared that: a) That the property Public Registry of Property, District of San José, registration, real folio number Placa20575, has suffered material damages, as a result of the earthworks (movilización de tierras) carried out by the defendant company CNN DESARROLLOS HABITACIONALES SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, a company that should have built a retaining wall. The defendants must pay the sum of THIRTY-FOUR MILLION NINE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR COLONES, which is equivalent to the value of the house destroyed by the earthworks (movimiento de tierras). The defendants must also build a retaining wall with all the technical specifications to guarantee that the process of land undermining of the plaintiffs' property is stopped. The defendant party is granted a period of one month to build the respective retaining wall, under the warning that if it fails to do so, the court will authorize the prevailing party to carry out what the ruling orders, at the expense of the losing party, who must also (sic) pay the damages caused by its inaction. The granted period begins to run from the finality of this resolution. The monetary sum granted shall accrue legal interest calculated in accordance with article 1163 of the Civil Code, from the date on which this resolution becomes final and until its effective payment. Both costs are to be borne by the defendant party" (folio 430 of the copy of file 07-001446-0164-CI). 11) That on October 27, 2010, the Second Civil Court, First Section, by judgment no. 311, confirmed the first instance judgment no. 189-10, of the Civil Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, in process 07-0014446-0164-CI (folio 359 of the copy of file 07-001446-0164-CI). 12) That on January 13, 2011, the Manager of the Coronado Branch, Mr. Luis Fernando Henderson García, through official letter SC053-001-2011, communicated to the plaintiff the conclusions of the report of the Legal Directorate, which analyzed his case, in official letter Nombre112493. /034-2011, of December 10, 2011. In the report's conclusions, it is pointed out that in 2007, the plaintiff submitted a credit application, whose investment plan was to convert the balance of the operation in development units to colones and an additional request for money to make improvements to his home. Although during the process it was indicated that the fire insurance policy from the credit in development units was being transferred, by mistake it was not done (folio 71 of the judicial file). 13) That on March 17, 2011, by judgment no. 000292-A-S1-2011, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared without merit the cassation appeal filed by CCNN Desarrollos Habitacionales, against judgment no. 311, of the Second Civil Court, First Section (folio 439 of file 07-001446-0164-CI), **II.- UNPROVEN FACTS:** Of importance for resolving this case: **1)** That as a consequence of the action and force of nature, as a result of telluric movements, during the year 2008, the plaintiff's house suffered serious damage, consisting of: sunken and cracked foundations, uneven, deformed, and cracked beams and columns, sunken and cracked floors and mezzanines, burst walls, burst sanitary fixtures and walls, a septic tank with leaks and on the verge of collapsing, drainage with outcrops, manholes, ash pit, and siphons with leaks (there is no proof in the record) **III.- CLAIM FORMULATED BY THE PLAINTIFF.** In essence, the plaintiff states that he canceled a first-degree mortgage with the defendant Bank and became a first-degree mortgage debtor of the defendant for the sum of ₡12,300,000. He alleges that he subscribed to a fire and earthquake insurance policy Hogar Seguro, under the risk coverage modality A, B, C, and D. He indicates that he paid the sum of ₡33,000, to be in good standing with the insurance and thereby guarantee its eventual payment. In his opinion, the Bank should have transferred the matter to the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, thereby violating the inter-institutional due process. He adds that to access the credit, the defendant entity had to assess the condition of his home, which it carried out, determining a value of ₡17,581,345.00, which was verified by the Manager and signed on August 8, 2007. He mentions that due to the telluric movements of 2010, his house suffered serious damage, which affected the foundations, beams, floors, mezzanines, walls, sanitary fixtures, manholes, etc. For this reason, the Ministry of Health declared the property uninhabitable. He points out that he subsequently requested payment of the policy from the Instituto Nacional de Seguros to fix his house. He indicates that said insurance entity rejected his action, by virtue of the fact that, as he affirms, the Bank did not transfer the effective payment of the premium, with which, as he argues, the inter-institutional due process INS-BANCO and the principle of legality were violated. He adds that the Bank requested the reactivation of the Hogar Seguro policy, however the Bank's action was not accepted. He adds that the Institute's Legal Directorate indicated that the responsibility was the Bank's.

**IV.- ARGUMENT OF THE DEFENDANT PARTY.** Fundamentally, the defendant Bank states that while it is true, when constituting the credit, the obligation was established to transfer the fire insurance to the new credit and the premium of ₡33,000 colones was deducted, due to a system error the insurance was not activated nor transferred from the credit, nor was any corresponding monthly fee deducted. Despite the foregoing, it considers that this error does not create a right. It affirms that the damage to the plaintiff's home is not due to acts of nature, but rather to those carried out by third parties.

**V.- OBJECT OF THE PROCESS.** From what was expressed by the parties, both in their claims and arguments, this is a civil treasury process, through which the plaintiff party requires that the defendant Bank assume the payment of the policy he subscribed to, with the purpose of covering the damages his home suffered from supposed seismic movements. Likewise, it requires recognition of moral damage.

**VI.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE.** The plaintiff party appears at this venue to demand the responsibility of the defendant banking entity, by imputing to it an omission consisting of not having transferred the payment of the policy premium covering his property given as collateral for the granted credit to the Instituto Nacional de Seguros. He alleges that due to telluric movements during 2010, his house suffered serious damage. He affirms that upon presenting the claim before the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, it declined payment by virtue of the defendant's omission. For its part, the defendant entity in its defense acknowledges the error, however, it considers that it cannot create a right, since the subsequent payments were not made. It also alleges the defense of the act of a third party, as it accuses that the damage suffered to the plaintiff's property is not due to telluric movements, but rather to earthworks (movimientos de tierra) carried out by a company. To this effect, it refers to the judicial process that the plaintiff filed against a company in 2007. To resolve this case, it is necessary to mention the strict liability scheme that governs administrative conduct. Said system is found in the General Law of Public Administration, starting from articles 190 and following. This system is based on the Political Constitution, in articles 9, 41, and 194 among others. In accordance with Law No. 6227, mentioned above, the convergence of each and every one of the components of the scheme is required to establish the liability of the Administration. Thus, the conduct imputed must be lawful, unlawful, normal, or abnormal. In turn, there must be damage that is real, effective, assessable, and individualizable (article 196). Furthermore, there must be a causal link between the imputed conduct and the damage. Once the applicable legal framework and its components have been outlined, it is appropriate to analyze the specific case, to determine if the omission accused against the defendant leads to the extra-contractual liability of the Administration. According to the list of proven facts, it is not controversial that the Banco Nacional, when granting a loan to the plaintiff, requested a fire and earthquake policy, called Hogar Seguro Dos Mil (proven fact no. 2). Neither is it controversial that the defendant Bank applied the deduction of the premium for this insurance (proven fact no. 3), however it kept the policy inactive by mistake (proven fact no. 9). For that reason, when the plaintiff filed a claim with the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, to make said policy effective, for supposed telluric movements occurring in 2010, the insurance entity declined, arguing the following: " In this regard, it is important to indicate what is stipulated in the General Conditions for the Hogar Seguro 2000 policy, regarding the granting of coverage: "The Institute shall indemnify the Insured for the direct and immediate loss suffered by the insured property (...) provided that they have been included in the contract in accordance with the stipulations in the Specific Conditions, and the premium that accredits the protection has been paid." According to our records, as of the date of the event the indicated policy was not in force, because payment ceased from the year 2006. The foregoing makes it impossible for the Institute to make the requested indemnification. Based on the foregoing, we are obligated to proceed with the declination of the case and the archiving of the file." (Proven fact no. 8). In the theory of the case proposed by the plaintiff, the Bank's conduct and the immediate consequence, which consisted of the declination by the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, obligates it to compensate under the aforementioned liability scheme. In the present case, it is noted that the insurance Institute did not proceed to assess the merits of the matter, that is, whether the claimed damages were actually due to any telluric movement, given that it was one of the fundamental factual assumptions for the policy to operate. Thus, to comply with the postulates of strict liability of the Administration, this aspect must be duly accredited in this venue, since without this essential element, known as the causal link, it is impossible to decree administrative liability. While it is possible to qualify the Bank's conduct as abnormal, as well as to visualize the damage, in the impossibility of making the policy effective, the truth is that it is the duty of the plaintiff to accredit in this venue the causal link between that conduct and the damage. For these purposes, he had to prove that the damages to his home were caused by seismic movements. Unfortunately, the file contains only the plaintiff's statement. Thus, this transcendental fact has not been accredited. When contrasting this evidentiary insufficiency with the judicial file 07-001446-0164-CI and the actions found therein, the Court has doubts about the veracity of the direct cause of the damages claimed by the plaintiff in his home. To those effects, it must be highlighted that in 2007, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against two parties, one of them, a construction company that carried out earthworks (movimientos de tierra) that produced damages very similar to those the plaintiff has been alleging to his property. Within that judicial process, there was a conviction to repair the damages caused in favor of the plaintiff. The first instance judgment was confirmed by the superior court, and even the extraordinary cassation appeal was rejected. Having not provided proof of his statement, as is the duty of whoever files a lawsuit, in accordance with the provisions of article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code, of supplementary application, pursuant to article 220 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, and, given the existence of evidence provided by the defendant that casts doubt on the origin of the damages, this Court is unable to grant the plaintiff's claims. The foregoing, because, as is reiterated, it is essential to demonstrate, for indemnity purposes, that the plaintiff was within the factual assumptions of the policy, called Hogar Seguro Dos Mil, one of which was that the damages occurring to the covered property were produced by seismic movements. Continuing in relation to this topic, the Court cannot overlook the contradiction it has found with this issue of the supposed seismic movements, since in the fourth fact of his lawsuit he affirms that the telluric movements occurred in 2008. On the other hand, according to the evidence examined, specifically, the claim filed with the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, the earthquake that caused the damages was from 2010. This inconsistency further increases the doubt that the Court has maintained, in relation to the veracity of the origin of the damages to the plaintiff's home, which would allow him to be situated within the factual indemnity assumption of the policy. In accordance with everything stated, it is the unanimous opinion of this Court that the lawsuit must be declared without merit and the defense of lack of right must be upheld. Regarding the defense of the act of a third party, it is rejected, given that technically it is not an individual defense, as it is included within the alleged lack of right, since it comprises the substantive normative legal analysis, which has already been analyzed in this section.

**VIII.- ON THE DEFENSES.** The defense of lack of active and passive standing is rejected, by virtue of the fact that a legal relationship exists between the defendant Bank and the plaintiff, resulting from a loan contract, which allows him to direct his claims against it, such that he has sufficient active standing. For its part, the banking entity has sufficient standing to be the passive party. The defense of lack of right is upheld, in accordance with what was set forth in the preceding recital. The defense of the act of a third party is rejected, in accordance with what was expressed previously.

**VIII.- ON COSTS.** In accordance with the provisions of article 193 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, the Court finds no reason to exonerate the plaintiff from the payment of costs. The payment thereof is imposed on the plaintiff.

**THEREFORE** The defense of lack of active and passive standing is rejected, as well as that of the act of a third party. The defense of lack of right is upheld. The lawsuit filed by Mr. Nombre112966 against the Banco Nacional is declared **without merit**. The plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendant's costs. **Let it be notified.** **Sergio Mena García** **Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas Luis Eduardo Mesén García**

ANNEX A.- At ten hours thirty minutes on the twenty-second of May of the year two thousand fourteen.-

Knowledge proceeding initiated by **Nombre112966**, of legal age, married, upholsterer, resident of San Antonio de Coronado, identity card CED89417, (f.13), grants special power of attorney to Licentiate **Baudilio Morales Monroy**, of legal age, attorney, identity card CED89418 **against:** **Banco Nacional de Costa Rica**, represented by its general judicial attorney, Licentiate **María Isabel Bonilla Herrera**, of legal age, attorney, resident of Cartago, identity card CED89419 (f.285).

**WHEREAS (RESULTANDO):** **1** **.-** That on **June 21, 2011**, based on the facts set forth and the legal citations adduced in this matter, the plaintiff indicated that he was formulating the following claim, transcribed literally: "*1. I respectfully request that this complaint be processed and granted. 2. Likewise, I REQUEST that the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica be ordered to cancel the total amount covered by the* Hogar Seguro 2000 *policy No. 118 INC 00036500 in my name and for banking operation 53-1-30395479 for* ** 11,932,884.57 *and its interest until effective payment from the filing of this Action. 3. That in a judgment of this respectable jurisdiction, the defendant be ordered to pay DAMAGES AND PREJUDICES, which, should I prevail, shall be specified in the corresponding proceeding, as well as the payment of procedural and personal costs.*" (Folio 8 of the judicial file). In response to the resolution at 9:49 hours on July 5, 2011, in which the Processing Judge requested clarifications to his complaint, the plaintiff, regarding his claim for damages, stated the following: "*1.* *Of the damages*: The Moral Damage: **1.1 OF THE MORAL DAMAGE, I value it at 5,000,000.00,** and it consists of the reparation for my suffering and that of my family, not only for the insecurity and anxiety in which we have had to live all this time with the house declared uninhabitable by Public Health, causing much discomfort to myself and the rest of my family, my restlessness, my unease, and grievance suffered as a result of being left unprotected by the insurance that I am legally entitled to. The weakening of my mood can never be overlooked, which has diminished my natural and normal behavior and has caused much suffering for my wife and children. 1.2 **Of the prejudices**: That your Resolution order the payment of the interest on what I am legally entitled to, from the date of Resolution 2010015402 of the Constitutional Chamber by which my Amparo Appeal was granted, or failing that, from the filing of this Writ of Execution until its effective payment*" (folios 258 and 259 of the judicial file). In the preliminary hearing during the analysis of claims, the plaintiff withdrew his request related to the resolution of the Constitutional Chamber (folio 300 of the judicial file and audiovisual record of the preliminary hearing).

**2.-** That on **October 3, 2011**, the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica answered the complaint negatively and interposed the defenses of lack of right, lack of active and passive standing, act of a third party, and necessary passive joinder of parties (folio 90 back of the judicial file).

**3.-** That on **July 16, 2012**, the Processing Judge Gustavo Irías Obando, rejected the defense of lack of necessary passive joinder of parties (folio 128 of the judicial file).

**4.-** On **January 8, 2013**, the preliminary hearing was held; the Processing Judge Billy Araya Olmos suspended said hearing to obtain as evidence for better resolution a ruling from the Constitutional Chamber (folio 300 of the judicial file and digital record).

**5.-** That on **April 16, 2013**, the preliminary hearing was continued (audiovisual record of the trial and folio 326 of the administrative file).

**6.-** That on **August 19, 2013**, the oral and public trial was held; the representative of the Banco Nacional again presented the defense of necessary passive joinder of parties. The Court rejected said defense, through resolution 83-2012. Despite the foregoing, it ordered a suspension, because the defendant stated she would file an appeal (folio 338 of the judicial file and audiovisual record of the trial).

**7.-** That on **August 21, 2013**, the representative of the Banco Nacional filed an appeal against what was resolved by the Court in resolution 83-2012 (folio 342 of the judicial file).

**8.-** That on **November 27, 2013**, the Court of Appeals confirmed resolution 83-2012 of the Court (folio 348 of the judicial file).

**9.-** That the oral and public trial was held again on **May 6, 2014** (audiovisual record of the trial and minutes).

**10.-** In the proceedings, the legal terms and prescriptions have been observed, and no defects or omissions likely to cause nullity or helplessness to the parties are noted. This ruling is issued within the term indicated in numeral 111, subsection 1, of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, hereinafter CPCA, after prior deliberation and unanimously.- Drafted by the Reporting Judge Mena García; with the affirmative vote of Judge Vargas Vargas and Judge Mesén García and; **CONSIDERING (CONSIDERANDO):** **I.-PROVEN FACTS**: The following are deemed to be of this nature due to their importance for the resolution of this matter: **1)** That on **July 18, 2007,** in the work order for processing in CIPAC-GAM, regarding the general information of the plaintiff's credit with the defendant Bank, the following is indicated: "*the fire policy for the credit in UDS is transferred and if necessary the coverage is increased*". (Folio 87 of the judicial file and 19 of the administrative file). **2)** That on **August 16, 2007**, the plaintiff and the defendant Bank appeared before the notary Ananías Matamoros Carvajal, for the purpose of canceling a first-degree mortgage that encumbered the property of the San José district, registration number Placa20575 . At the same time, the plaintiff was newly constituted as a debtor for the sum of ** 12,300,000 (twelve million three hundred thousand colones). In the signed document, the clause regarding Insurance stipulates the following: "**CONSTITUTION AND PAYMENT OF INSURANCE**: *The debtor expressly and irrevocably undertakes to insure the credit granted as a guarantee of this document during the agreed term; with a* Hogar Seguro Dos Mil *fire and earthquake policy, with the coverages inherent to its risk, whether A, B, C, and D, and insurance against inflation of twenty percent of the PCI, KEEPING policy number zero one one eight INC zero zero three zero three six five zero zero in force and related to this credit, up to the current value of the existing constructions on the property given as a guarantee, namely the sum of eleven million six hundred ninety-four thousand four hundred five colones, and with the policies that may be required by the creditor, issued by the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, through the Banco Nacional Insurance Broker. In said policy, the debtor shall designate the creditor as assignee or beneficiary. Likewise, the debtor is obliged to keep said insurance in force until the maturity or full payment of this obligation and undertakes to keep the bank informed, by suitable means, of the periodic renewals it makes of the insurance, it being understood that the non-observance of these conditions shall give the bank the right to deem the obligation due and demand it judicially in its entirety. The debtor also authorizes the creditor to increase, whenever it deems it appropriate, the amount of the installment stipulated here to apply to the payment of the renewal premium and the adjustments that originate from increases in the INS rates or increases in the actual effective value of the property, based on the updated inspection of the assets, their actual value established by the bank's experts, or by an increase expressly requested by the debtor. Furthermore, the debtor authorizes the creditor so that, in the event of default or omission, it may proceed on its behalf to renew and pay the respective insurance, proceeding to reimburse it the sum paid plus the corresponding proportional interest from the date of disbursement by the bank to the date of effective payment on the debtor's account, calculated at the same interest rate that governs this credit at the moment said payment is made.*" (Folio 97 of the judicial file). **3)** That on **August 21, 2007**, according to a document related to the deductions applied to the amount of the credit granted to the plaintiff, the defendant Bank deducted the sum of ** 33,000 (thirty-three thousand colones) for the concept of insurance (folio 18 of the administrative file and 88 of the judicial file). **4)** That on **December 5, 2007**, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the Condominio Residencial San Antonio and CCN Desarrollos Habitacionales Sociedad Anónima, for the damage suffered to his dwelling, property registration number Placa20576, . The plaintiff described said damages in his complaint as follows: "*Repair of fissures in internal walls, fissures in external walls, fissures in the floors of the living room, dining room, rooms, support columns, bathroom, drinking water pipes, sewage, bathroom water, lavatory, kitchen sink, and/or other damages that the requested expert can determine...*" (Folio 19 of the copy of file 07-001446-0164-CA). **5)** That on **October 2, 2008**, through official letter DSA-230-542, Mr. Alfredo Zeledón Noguera, from the Department of Environmental Sanitation, addressed an official letter to Doctor Andrea Morales, in her capacity as Director of the Coronado Health Area, stating the following: "*In response to the reference, I am forwarding to you a copy of Technical Report DPM-INF-2113-2007, signed by geologist Dione Barahona Oviedo, an official of the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Attention to Natural Disasters (CNE). As was verified during the inspection carried out today, the construction cannot be defined as habitable due to the existing structural damage. At the same time, I inform you that this building has already been assessed on two occasions by officials of the Municipal Corporation. Until such time as the necessary works for its habitability are carried out, it is the opinion of the undersigned that the dwelling must be vacated, given the imminent danger looming over the lives of its inhabitants.*" (Folio 50 of the administrative file). **6)** That on **October 7, 2008**, Ms. Grace Arias Morera signed sanitary order no. 044-08 UPAH, ordering the plaintiff to vacate his dwelling, having been declared uninhabitable and dangerous (folio 51 of the administrative file). **7)** That on **May 17, 2010,** the plaintiff presented the following statement to the Instituto Nacional de Seguros: "*I DECLARE THAT: On 05/13/2010 at 07:15 PM -approximately- an earthquake-related loss occurred. (Latest tremors witnessed) In the indicated dwelling, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it was caused by earthquake damage*" (folio 44 of the judicial file). **8)** That on **May 25, 2010**, by official letter INSSJ-05820-2010, signed by Licentiate Ligia Rees Blanco and addressed to the plaintiff, she stated the following: "*We refer to the claim in reference, opened in your name, for an event that occurred on May 13 of the current month. In this regard, it is important to indicate what is stipulated in the General Conditions for the Hogar Seguro 2000 policy regarding the granting of coverage: 'The Institute shall indemnify the Insured for the direct and immediate loss suffered by the insured property (...) provided they have been included in the contract in accordance with what is stipulated in the Specific Conditions, and the premium that accredits the protection has been paid.' According to our records, at the date of the event, the indicated policy was not in force because payment ceased in 2006. The foregoing makes it impossible for the Institute to make the requested indemnification. Based on the foregoing, we are obliged to proceed with the declination of the case and the archiving of the file.*" (Folio 45 of the judicial file). **9)** That on **June 9, 2010**, the Credit Manager of the Coronado Branch, of the defendant entity, Mr. Víctor Gutiérrez Morúa, addressed an unnumbered official letter to the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, in which he requested the activation of the Hogar Seguro 2000 policy in favor of the plaintiff.

According to his explanation, "the situation that arose in 2006 when Mr. Nombre112966 restructured his debt with the Bank and the policy was left inactive by mistake" (folio 46 of the judicial file). 10) That on June 24, 2010, through judgment No. 189-10, the Civil Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, in proceeding 07-0014446-0164-CI, resolved the following: "POR TANTO: The defenses of lack of right and lack of standing in its passive form are dismissed. The present ordinary claim filed by Nombre112966 and Nombre112967 against CONDOMINIO VERTICAL RESIDENCIAL SAN ANTONIO and CNN DESARROLLOS HABITACIONALES SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA is granted. It is declared that: a) That the property Public Registry of Property, Partido de San José, registration, real folio number Placa20575, has suffered material damages, as a result of the earthworks (movilización de tierras) carried out by the defendant company CNN DESARROLLOS HABITACIONALES SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, a company that should have built a retaining wall (muro de retención). The defendants must pay the sum of THIRTY-FOUR MILLION NINE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR COLONES, which is equivalent to the value of the house destroyed by the earthworks (movimiento de tierras). The defendants must also build a retaining wall (muro de retención) with all the technical specifications to guarantee that the process of ground destabilization of the plaintiffs' property is halted. The defendant party is granted a period of one month to build the respective retaining wall (muro de retención), under warning that if they fail to do so, the court will authorize the prevailing party to carry out what the judgment orders, at the expense of the defeated party, who must also pay the damages and losses caused by their inaction. The granted period begins to run from the finality of this resolution. The monetary sum awarded shall accrue legal interest calculated in accordance with Article 1163 of the Civil Code, from the date this resolution becomes final until its effective payment. Both sets of costs are to be borne by the defendant party" (folio 430 of the copy of file 07-001446-0164-CI). 11) That on October 27, 2010, the Second Civil Tribunal, First Section, through judgment No. 311, confirmed the first-instance judgment No. 189-10, of the Civil Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, in proceeding 07-001446-0164-CI (folio 359 of the copy of file 07-001446-0164-CI). 12) That on January 13, 2011, the Manager of the Coronado Branch, Mr. Luis Fernando Henderson García, through official letter SC053-001-2011, communicated to the plaintiff the conclusions of the report from the Legal Directorate, which analyzed his case, in official letter Nombre112493. /034-2011, of December 10, 2011. The conclusions of the report indicate that in 2007, the plaintiff submitted a credit application, whose investment plan was to convert the balance of the operation in unidades de desarrollo to colones and an additional request for money to make improvements to his home. Although the process indicated that the fire policy from the credit in unidades de desarrollo was being transferred, by mistake it was not done (folio 71 of the judicial file). 13) That on March 17, 2011, through judgment No. 000292-A-S1-2011, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared without merit the cassation appeal filed by CCNN Desarrollos Habitacionales against judgment No. 311, of the Second Civil Tribunal, First Section (folio 439 of file 07-001446-0164-CI), II.-UNPROVEN FACTS: Of importance for resolving this case: 1) That as a consequence of the action and force of nature, resulting from telluric movements, during the year 2008, the plaintiff's house suffered serious damage, consisting of: sunken and cracked foundations, unlevel, deformed and cracked beams and columns, sunken and cracked floors and mezzanines, burst walls, burst sanitary fixtures and walls, septic tank with leaks and on the verge of collapsing, drainage with upwellings, inspection boxes, ash pits and siphons with leaks (no evidence exists in the case file) III.-CLAIM FORMULATED BY THE PLAINTIFF. In essence, the plaintiff states that he cancelled a first-degree mortgage with the defendant Bank and became the first-degree mortgage debtor of the defendant for the sum of ₡12,300,000. He alleges that he signed a fire and earthquake policy called Hogar Seguro, under the risk coverage modalities A, B, C and D. He indicates that he paid the sum of ₡33,000, to be in good standing with the insurance and thus guarantee its eventual payment. In his opinion, the Bank should have transferred the matter to the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, thereby violating the inter-institutional due process. He adds that to access the credit, the defendant entity had to assess the state of his home, which it carried out, determining a value of ₡17,581,345.oo, which was verified by the Manager and signed on August 8, 2007. He mentions that due to the telluric movements of the year 2010, his house suffered serious damage, affecting the foundations, beams, floors, mezzanines, walls, sanitary fixtures, inspection boxes, etc. For this reason, the Ministry of Health declared the property uninhabitable. He points out that he subsequently requested the Instituto Nacional de Seguros to pay the policy to fix his house. He indicates that said insurance entity rejected his claim, by virtue of the fact that, according to what it states, the Bank did not transfer the effective payment of the premium, with which, he argues, the inter-institutional due process INS-BANCO and the principle of legality were violated. He adds that the Bank requested the reactivation of the Hogar Seguro policy; however, the Bank's action was not accepted. He adds that the Legal Directorate of the Institute indicated that the responsibility lay with the Bank.

IV.- ARGUMENT OF THE DEFENDANT PARTY. Fundamentally, the defendant Bank states that although it is true, when constituting the credit, the obligation to transfer the fire insurance to the new credit was established and the premium of ₡33,000 colones was deducted from him, due to a system error the insurance was not activated or transferred for the credit, nor was any corresponding monthly fee deducted. Despite the foregoing, it considers that this error does not create a right. It affirms that the damages to the plaintiff's home are not due to natural events, but rather to those carried out by third parties.

V.-SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING. From what has been expressed by the parties, both in their claims and arguments, this is a civil treasury proceeding, through which the plaintiff seeks that the defendant Bank assume the payment of the policy he signed, with the purpose of covering the damages that his home suffered due to supposed seismic movements. Likewise, he seeks the recognition of non-material damage (daño moral).

VI.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE. The plaintiff appears before this venue to request the liability of the defendant banking entity, by imputing to it an act of omission, consisting of not having transferred the payment of the premium to the Instituto Nacional de Seguros for the policy that covered his property given as collateral for the granted credit. He alleges that due to telluric movements during the year 2010, his house suffered serious damage. He affirms that upon presenting the claim to the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, it declined payment, by virtue of the defendant's omission. For its part, the defendant entity in its defense acknowledges the error; however, it considers that it cannot create a right, since the subsequent payments were not made. It also alleges the exempting circumstance of the act of a third party, as it claims that the damages suffered to the plaintiff's property are not due to telluric movements, but to earthworks (movimientos de tierra) carried out by a company. To this effect, it refers to the judicial proceeding that the plaintiff filed against a company in 2007. To resolve this case, it is necessary to mention the strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) scheme that governs administrative conduct. Said system is found in the Ley General de la Administración Pública, starting from Articles 190 and following. This system has its basis in the Constitución Política, in Articles 9, 41 and 194, among others. Pursuant to Law No. 6227, mentioned above, the convergence of each and every component of the scheme is required, in order to establish the liability of the Administration. Thus, the conduct imputed must be lawful, unlawful, normal or abnormal. In turn, there must be damage, which must be real, effective, evaluable and individualizable (Article 196). Furthermore, there must be a causal link (nexo de causalidad) between the imputed conduct and the damage. Once the applicable legal framework and its components have been outlined, the appropriate step is to analyze the specific case, to determine if the act of omission attributed to the defendant leads to the extra-contractual liability of the Administration. According to the list of proven facts, the fact that the Banco Nacional, upon granting a credit to the plaintiff, requested a fire and earthquake policy, called Hogar Seguro Dos Mil, is not disputed (proven fact No. 2). Nor is it disputed that the defendant Bank applied the deduction of the premium for this insurance (proven fact No. 3); however, it kept the policy inactive by mistake (proven fact No. 9). For this reason, when the plaintiff presented a claim to the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, to make said policy effective, for supposed telluric movements that occurred in 2010, the insuring entity declined, arguing the following: "In this regard, it is important to indicate what is stipulated in the General Conditions for the Hogar Seguro 2000 policy, regarding the granting of coverage: 'The Institute shall indemnify the Insured for the direct and immediate loss suffered by the insured goods (...) provided that they have been included in the contract in accordance with what is stipulated in the Particular Conditions, and the premium that credits the protection has been paid.' According to our records, on the date of the event the indicated policy was not in force, because payments ceased as of the year 2006. The foregoing makes it impossible for the Institute to make the requested indemnification. Based on the above, we find ourselves obliged to proceed with the declination of the case and the archiving of the file." (Proven fact No. 8). In the theory of the case raised by the plaintiff, the Bank's conduct and the immediate consequence, which consisted of the declination by the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, obliges it to compensate under the liability scheme mentioned above. In the present case, it is observed that the insuring Institute did not proceed to assess the merits of the matter, that is, whether the claimed damages were really due to some telluric movement, given that this was one of the fundamental factual assumptions for the policy to operate. Therefore, in order to comply with the postulates of the strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) of the Administration, this aspect must be duly accredited in this venue, since without this essential element, known as the causal link (nexo causal), it is impossible to decree administrative liability. Although it is possible to qualify the Bank's conduct as abnormal, as well as to visualize the damage, in the impossibility of making the policy effective, the truth is that it is the plaintiff's duty to prove in this venue the causal link (nexo causal) between that conduct and the damage. For these purposes, he had to prove that the damages to his home were caused by seismic movements. Unfortunately, the file contains only the plaintiff's statement. Consequently, this transcendental fact has not been proven. When contrasting this evidentiary insufficiency with the judicial file 07-001446-0164-CI and the actions contained therein, the Tribunal has doubts about the veracity of the direct cause of the damages that the plaintiff claims to his home. To that effect, it must be highlighted that in the year 2007, the plaintiff filed a claim against two parties, one of these being a construction company that carried out earthworks (movimientos de tierra) that produced damages very similar to those that the plaintiff has been alleging regarding his property. Within that judicial proceeding, there was a condemnation to repair the damages caused in favor of the plaintiff. The first-instance judgment was confirmed by the superior court, and the extraordinary cassation appeal was even dismissed. Having not provided evidence of his statement, as is the duty of whoever files a claim, in accordance with the provisions of Article 317 of the Código Procesal Civil, applied supplementary, according to Article 220 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, and, as evidence provided by the defendant exists that casts doubt on the origin of the damages, this Tribunal is unable to grant the plaintiff's claims. The foregoing, because, as reiterated, it is essential to demonstrate, for indemnification purposes, that the plaintiff was within the factual assumptions of the policy, called Hogar Seguro Dos Mil, one of which was that the damages suffered to the covered good were produced by seismic movements. Still in relation to this topic, the Tribunal cannot overlook the contradiction it has found regarding this issue of the supposed seismic movements, because in fact four of his claim, he affirms that the telluric movements occurred in the year 2008. On the other hand, according to the examined evidence, specifically, the claim before the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, the earthquake that caused the damages was in 2010. This inconsistency further increases the doubt that the Tribunal has maintained, in relation to the veracity of the origin of the damages to the claimant's home, which would allow him to fall within the factual indemnification assumption of the policy. In accordance with all the foregoing, it is the unanimous opinion of this Tribunal that the claim must be declared without merit and the defense of lack of right must be admitted. Regarding the defense of the act of a third party, it is dismissed, given that technically it is not an individual defense, as it is encompassed within the alleged lack of right, since it comprises the substantive legal-normative analysis, which was already analyzed in this section.

VIII.-ON THE DEFENSES. The defense of lack of active and passive standing is dismissed, by virtue of the fact that there is a legal relationship between the defendant Bank and the plaintiff, arising from a loan contract, which allows him to direct his claims against it, such that he has sufficient active standing. For its part, the banking entity has sufficient standing to be the passive party. The defense of lack of right is admitted, in accordance with what is stated in the preceding considerando. The defense of the act of a third party is dismissed, in accordance with what is stated above.

VIII.-ON COSTS. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, the Tribunal finds no reason whatsoever to exonerate the plaintiff from paying costs. The payment of these costs is imposed on the plaintiff.

POR TANTO

The defense of lack of active and passive standing, as well as that of the act of a third party, are dismissed. The defense of lack of right is admitted. The claim filed by Mr. Nombre112966 against the Banco Nacional is declared without merit. The plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendant's costs. Notifíquese Sergio Mena García Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas Luis Eduardo Mesén García 3

PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO ACTOR: Nombre112966 DEMANDADO: INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE SEGUROS SENTENCIA No. 33 -2014-V TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. SECCIÓN QUINTA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ, GOICOECHEA. ANEXO A.- A las diez horas treinta minutos del veintidós de mayo del año dos mil catorce.- Proceso de conocimiento incoado por Nombre112966 , mayor, casado, tapicero, vecino de San Antonio de Coronado, cédula de identidad CED89417, (f.13), otorga poder especial judicial al Licenciado Baudilio Morales Monroy, mayor, abogado, cédula de identidad CED89418 contra: el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, representado por su apoderada general judicial, licenciada María Isabel Bonilla Herrera, mayor, abogada, vecina de Cartago, cédula CED89419 (f.285).

RESULTANDO:

1 .- Que el 21 de junio del 2011 , sustentada en los hechos que expone y citas legales aducidas, en este asunto, el actor indicó que formulaba la siguiente pretensión, que se transcribe de forma literal: "1. Respetuosamente solicito sea tramitada y declarada con lugar la presente demanda. 2. Asimismo, PIDO que se obligue al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica a la cancelación del total que cubre la póliza Hogar Seguro 2000 No. 118 INC 00036500 a mi nombre y por concepto de operación bancaria 53-1-30395479 por  11.932.884.57 y sus intereses hasta el efectivo pago desde la interposición de la presente Acción. 3. Que en sentencia de esa respetable jurisdicción se condene a la demandada al pago de DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS, que de favorecerme se especificarán en la vía correspondiente, así como al pago de las costas procesales y personales." (Folio 8 del expediente judicial). En atención a la resolución de las 9:49 horas, del 5 de julio del 2011, en la que el Juez Tramitador solicitó aclaraciones a su demanda, el actor, en relación con su pretensión de daños indicó lo siguiente: "1. De los daños: El Daño Moral: 1.1 DEL DAÑO MORAL, lo valoro en 5.000.000.oo, y consiste en la reparación de mi sufrimiento y el de mi familia, no sólo por la inseguridad y zozobra en que nos ha tocado vivir todo este tiempo con la casa declarada inhabitable por Salud pública, causándonos mucho malestar a mi persona y al resto de mi familia, mi inquietud, mi intranquilidad y agravio, sufridos como producto de tenerme desamparado del seguro que en derecho me corresponde. No puede soslayarse jamás el debilitamiento de mi estado de ánimo, que ha venido en menoscabo de mi comportamiento natural y normal que ha sido para mi esposa y mis hijos de mucho sufrimiento. 1.2 De los perjuicios: Que en su Resolución se ordene el pago de los intereses de lo que en Derecho me corresponde, desde la fecha de Resolución 2010015402 de la Sala Constitucional por la cual se declara con lugar mi Recurso de Amparo o en su defecto, desde la presentación de esta Ejecutoria hasta su efectivo pago" (folios 258 y 259 del expediente judicial). En la audiencia preliminar en el análisis de pretensiones, la parte actora desistió de su petición relacionada con la resolución de la Sala Constitucional (folio 300 del expediente judicial y soporte audiovisual de la audiencia preliminar).

2.- Que el 3 de octubre del 2011, el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, contestó en forma negativa la demanda, e interpuso las excepciones de falta de derecho, falta de legitimación activa y pasiva, hecho de un tercero y litis consorcio pasivo necesario (folio 90 vuelto del expediente judicial).

3.- Que el 16 de julio del 2012, el Juez Tramitador Gustavo Irías Obando, rechazó la excepción de falta de litis consorcio pasivo necesario (folio 128 del expediente judicial).

4.- El día 8 de enero del 2013, se llevó a cabo la audiencia preliminar, el Juez Tramitador Billy Araya Olmos, suspendió dicha audiencia para tener como prueba para mejor resolver una sentencia de la Sala Constitucional (folio 300 del expediente judicial y soporte digital).

5.- Que el 16 de abril del 2013, se continuó la audiencia preliminar (soporte audiovisual del juicio y folio 326 del expediente administrativo).

6.- Que el 19 de agosto del 2013, se llevó a cabo el juicio oral y público, la representante del Banco Nacional volvió a presentar la excepción de litis consorcio pasivo necesario. El Tribunal rechazó dicha excepción, mediante la resolución 83-2012. Pese a lo anterior, ordenó suspender, pues la demandada manifestó que iba a presentar recurso de apelación (folio 338 del expediente judicial y soporte audiovisual del juicio) 7.- Que el 21 de agosto del 2013, la representante del Banco Nacional presentó recurso de apelación en contra de lo resuelto por el Tribunal, en resolución 83-2012 (folio 342 del expediente judicial).

8.- Que el 27 de noviembre del 2013, el Tribunal de Apelaciones, confirmó la resolución 83-2012 del Tribunal (folios 348 del expediente judicial).

9.- Que el juicio oral y público se llevó a cabo nuevamente el 6 de mayo del 2014 (soporte audiovisual del juicio y acta).

10.- En los procedimientos se han observado los términos y prescripciones de ley, y no se notan vicios u omisiones susceptibles de producir nulidad o indefensión a las partes. Se emite este fallo dentro del plazo indicado en el numeral 111, inciso 1, del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, en adelante CPCA, previa deliberación y por unanimidad.- Redacta el Juez ponente Mena García; con el voto afirmativo de la juzgadora Vargas Vargas y el Juzgador Mesén García y;

CONSIDERANDO:

I.-HECHOS PROBADOS: De importancia para la resolución de este asunto se tienen como de esta naturaleza los siguientes: 1) Que el 18 de julio del 2007, en la orden de trabajo para trámite en CIPAC-GAM, relativa a la información general del crédito del actor, con el Banco demandado, se indica los siguiente: "se traslada póliza de incendio del crédito en UDS y si es necesario se aumenta la cobertura". (Folio 87 del expediente judicial y 19 del expediente administrativo). 2) Que el 16 de agosto del 2007, comparecieron ante el notario Ananías Matamoros Carvajal, el actor y el Banco demandado, a efectos de cancelar hipoteca en primer grado, que pesaba sobre la finca del partido de San José, matrícula Placa20575 . A la vez, el actor se constituyó nuevamente en deudor por la suma de  12.300.000 (doce millones trescientos mil colones). En el documento suscrito, la cláusula referente a los Seguros dispone lo siguiente: "CONSTITUCIÓN Y PAGO DE SEGUROS : La parte deudora de manera expresa e irrevocable se compromete a asegurar el crédito otorgado en garantía de este documento durante el plazo convenido; con póliza de incendio y terremoto Hogar Seguro Dos Mil, con las coberturas propias de su riesgo sea A, B, C, y D, y el seguro contra la inflación del veinte por ciento del PCI, MANTENIENDO vigente y relacionada con este crédito la póliza número cero uno uno ocho INC cero cero tres cero tres seis cinco cero cero, hasta por el valor actual de las construcciones existentes en la finca dada en garantía sea la suma de once millones seiscientos noventa y cuatro mil cuatrocientos cinco colones y con las pólizas que sean requeridas por el acreedor, extendidas por el Instituto Nacional de Seguros, por medio de la Comercializadora de Seguros del Banco Nacional. En dicha póliza la parte deudora designará al acreedor como cesionario o beneficiario. Asimismo, la parte deudora se obliga a mantener vigente ese seguro hasta el vencimiento o pago total de esta obligación y se compromete a mantener informado al banco, por los medios idóneos, de las renovaciones periódicas que efectúe del seguro, siendo entendido que la no observancia de esta condiciones, dará derecho al banco a dar por vencida la obligación y exigirla judicialmente en su totalidad. Igualmente la parte deudora autoriza al acreedor a para incrementar cuando así lo considere oportuno el monto de la cuota aquí estipulada para aplicar al pago de la prima de renovación y los ajustes que originen aumento en las tarifas del INS o aumentos en el valor real efectivo de los bienes, con base en la inspección actualizada de los activos su valor real, establecido por los peritos del banco o por aumento solicitado expresamente por la parte deudora. Además, la parte deudora autoriza al acreedor para que en caso de mora u omisión, proceda en nombre suyo a renovar y pagar los respectivos seguros, procediendo a reintegrarle la suma pagada más los intereses proporcionales correspondientes desde la fecha de desembolso por parte del banco, hasta la fecha del efectivo pago por cuenta del deudor, calculados a la misma tasa de interés que rija para este crédito al momento de efectuarse ese pago." (Folio 97 del expediente judicial). 3) Que el 21 de agosto del 2007, según consta en documento, relacionado a las deducciones aplicadas al monto del crédito otorgado al actor, el Banco demandado dedujo la suma de  33.000 (treinta y tres mil colones, por concepto de seguros (folio 18 del expediente administrativo y 88 del expediente judicial). 4) Que el 5 de diciembre del 2007, el actor presentó demanda en contra del Condominio Residencial San Antonio y CCN Desarrollos Habitacionales Sociedad Anónima, por los daños sufridos en su casa de habitación, matrícula folio real Placa20576, . Dichos menoscabos la parte actora los describió en su demanda de la siguiente forma: "Reparación de las fisuras en paredes internas, fisuras en paredes externas, fisuras en pisos de la sala, comedor, cuartos, Columnas de apoyo, Baño, tuberías de agua potable, aguas negras, aguas del baño, lavatorio, fregadero, y/o otros daños que el perito que se solicita pueda determinar..." (Folio 19 de la copia del expediente 07-001446-0164-CA). 5) Que el 2 de octubre del 2008, mediante el oficio DSA-230-542, el señor Alfredo Zeledón Noguera, del Departamento de Saneamiento Ambiental, le dirigió oficio a la Doctora Andrea Morales, en su condición de Directora de Área de Salud de Coronado, mediante el cual indicaba lo siguiente: "En atención a la referencia, me permito remitir a su persona copia del Informe Técnico DPM-INF-2113-2007, suscrito por la geóloga Dione Barahona Oviedo, funcionaria de la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Desastres Naturales (CNE). Tal y como se pudo constatar durante la inspección realiza da el día de hoy, la construcción no se puede definir habitable por los daños estructurales existentes en la misma. Al mismo tiempo le informo que esta edificación ya ha sido valorada en dos ocasiones por funcionarios de Corporación Municipal. Hasta tanto no se realicen las obras necesarias para su habitabilidad, es criterio del suscrito que se debe desalojar la vivienda, ante el inminente peligro que se cierne sobre la vida de los habitantes de la misma." (Folio 50 del expediente administrativo). 6) Que el 7 de octubre del 2008, la señora Grace Arias Morera, suscribió la orden sanitaria n.° 044-08 UPAH, mediante la cual ordenaba al actor desalojar su vivienda, al haber sido declarada inhabitable, por peligrosa (folio 51 del expediente administrativo). 7) Que el 17 de mayo del 2010, el actor presentó ante el Instituto Nacional de Seguros, la siguiente declaración: "DECLARO QUE: El día 13/05/2010 a las 07:15 PM -aproximadamente- ocurrió un siniestro de sismo. (Últimos temblores presenciados) En Casa de habitación indicada, según mi leal saber y entender fue originado por daños por sismo " (folio 44 del expediente judicial). 8) Que el 25 de mayo del 2010, mediante el oficio INSSJ-05820-2010, suscrito por la Licenciada Ligia Rees Blanco, dirigido al actor, le indicó lo siguiente: "Nos referimos al reclamo en la referencia, abierto a su nombre, por evento ocurrido el 13 de mayo de los corrientes. Al respecto es importante indicar lo estipulado en las Condiciones Generales para la póliza Hogar Seguro 2000, respecto al otorgamiento de la cobertura: "El Instituto indemnizará al Asegurado por la pérdida directa e inmediata que sufran los bienes asegurados (...) siempre y cuando hayan sido incluidas en el contrato de conformidad con lo estipulado en las Condiciones Particulares, y se haya pagado la prima que acredita la protección." Según nuestros registros, a la fecha del evento la póliza indicada no estaba vigente, debido a que dejó de pagarse desde el año 2006. Lo anterior imposibilita al Instituto para realizar la indemnización solicitada. Según lo expuesto, nos vemos en la obligación de proceder con la declinación del caso y el archivo del expediente." (Folio 45 del expediente judicial). 9) Que el 9 de junio del 2010, el Jefe de Crédito de la Sucursal de Coronado, de la entidad demandada, señor Víctor Gutiérrez Morúa, le dirigió oficio sin número al Instituto Nacional de Seguros, en el que solicitó la activación de la póliza Hogar Seguro 2000, a favor del actor. Según explica, "la situación que se presentó en el año 2006 cuando el señor Nombre112966 hizo una adecuación de su deuda con el Banco y la póliza se dejó inactiva por error" (folio 46 del expediente judicial). 10) Que el 24 de junio del 2010, mediante sentencia n.° 189-10, el Juzgado Civil del II Circuito Judicial de San José, en el proceso 07-0014446-0164-CI, resolvió lo siguiente: "POR TANTO: Se rechazan las excepciones de falta de derecho, y falta de legitimación en su modalidad pasiva. Se declara con lugar la presente demanda ordinaria establecida por Nombre112966 , y Nombre112967 , en contra de CONDOMINIO VERTICAL RESIDENCIAL SAN ANTONIO, y CNN DESARROLLOS HABITACIONALES SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA. Se declara que: a) Que el inmueble Registro Público de la Propiedad, Partido de San José, matricula, folio real número Placa20575 , ha sufrido daños materiales, producto de la movilización de tierras hecha por la sociedad demandada CNN DESARROLLOS HABITACIONALES SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, sociedad que debió haber construido un muro de retención. Deberán los demandados cancelar la suma de TREINTA Y CUATRO MILLONES NOVECIENTOS SESENTA MIL CIENTO VEINTICUATRO COLONES, que equivale al valor de la casa destruida por el movimiento de tierras. Deberán también los demandados construir un muro de retención con todas las especificaciones técnicas para garantizar que el proceso de falseamiento del terreno de la propiedad de los actores se detenga. Se le otorga a la parte demandada un plazo de un mes, para que construya el respectivo muro de retención, bajo el apercibimiento de que de no hacerlo así, el juzgado autorizará al victorioso para que haga lo que ordena el fallo, por cuenta del vencido, quien además deberá además (sic) pagar los da ños y perjuicios producidos por su inercia. El plazo otorgado comienza a correr a partir de la firmeza de la presente resolución. La suma dineraria concedida devengará intereses legales calculados de conformidad con el artículo 1163 del Código Civil, desde la fecha en que la presente resolución adquiera firmezas y hasta su efectivo pago. Son ambas costas a cargo de la parte demandada" (folio 430 de la copia del expediente 07-001446-0164-CI). 11) Que el 27 de octubre del 2010, el Tribunal Segundo Civil, Sección Primera, mediante la sentencia n.° 311, confirmó la sentencia de primera instancia n.° 189-10, del Juzgado Civil del II Circuito Judicial de San José, en el proceso 07-0014446-0164-CI (folio 359 de la copia del expediente 07-001446-0164-CI). 12) Que el 13 de enero del 2011, el Gerente de la Sucursal de Coronado, señor Luis Fernando Henderson García, mediante el oficio SC053-001-2011, le comunicó al actor las conclusiones del informe de la Dirección Jurídica, que analizó su caso, en oficio Nombre112493. /034-2011, del 10 de diciembre del 2011. En las conclusiones del informe se señala que en el año 2007, el actor presentó una solicitud de crédito, cuyo plan de inversión fue pasar el saldo de la operación en unidades de desarrollo a colones y una solicitud adicional de dinero para hacer mejoras a su vivienda. Si bien en el trámite se indicó que se trasladaba la póliza de incendio del crédito en unidades de desarrollo, por error no se hizo (folio 71 del expediente judicial). 13) Que el 17 de marzo del 2011, mediante sentencia n.°000292-A-S1-2011, la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia declaró sin lugar el recurso de casación que presentó CCNN Desarrollos Habitacionales, en contra de la sentencia n.° 311, del Tribunal Segundo Civil, Sección Primera (folio 439 del expediente 07-001446-0164-CI), II.-HECHOS NO PROBADOS: De importancia para resolver la presente causa: 1) Que como consecuencia de la acción y fuerza de la naturaleza, producto de movimientos telúricos, durante el año 2008, la casa del actor sufriera serias averías, consistentes en: cimientos hundidos, y agrietados, vigas y columnas desniveladas, deformadas y agrietadas, pisos y entrepisos hundidos y agrietados, paredes reventadas, servicios sanitarios y paredes reventadas, tanque séptico con fugas y a punto de colapsar, drenaje con afloramientos, cajas de registro, cenicero y sifones con fugas (no existe prueba en los autos) III.-RECLAMO FORMULADO POR LA ACCIONANTE. En lo esencial, el actor señala que canceló hipoteca en primer grado con el Banco demandado y se constituyó como deudor hipotecario del demandado en primer grado por la suma de 12.300.000. Aduce que suscribió una póliza contra incendio y terremoto Hogar Seguro, bajo la modalidad de coberturas de riesgo A, B, C Y D. Indica que canceló la suma  33.000, para estar a derecho con el seguro y de este modo garantizar su pago eventual. Según su criterio, el Banco debió trasladar el asunto al Instituto Nacional de Seguros, con lo cual violentó el debido proceso interinstitucional. Agrega que para acceder al crédito, la entidad demandada debió valorar el estado de su vivienda, lo cual llevó a cabo, determinando un valor de  17.581.345.oo, el cual fue constatado por el Gerente y firmado el 8 de agosto del año 2007. Menciona que debido a los movimientos telúricos del año 2010, su casa sufrió serias averías, que afectaron los cimientos, vigas, pisos, entrepisos, paredes, servicios sanitarios, cajas de registro, etc. Por este motivo, el Ministerio de Salud declaró inevitable el inmueble. Señala que posteriormente solicitó al Instituto Nacional de Seguros el pago de la póliza para arreglar su casa. Indica que dicha entidad aseguradora rechazó su gestión, en virtud de que según afirma, el Banco no trasladó el efectivo pago de la prima, con lo que según argumenta, se violentó el debido proceso interinstitucional INS-BANCO y principio de legalidad. Agrega que el Banco solicitó la reactivación de la póliza Hogar Seguro, no obstante no fue aceptada la gestión del Banco. Añade que la Dirección Jurídica del Instituto indicó que la responsabilidad era del Banco.

IV.- ARGUMENTO DE LA PARTE DEMANDADA. En lo fundamental, manifiesta el Banco demandado que si bien es cierto, al constituir el crédito, se estableció la obligación de trasladar el seguro de incendio al nuevo crédito y se le rebajó la prima de 33.000 colones, por un error del sistema no se le activó ni se le trasladó el seguro del crédito, ni se le rebajó ninguna cuota mensual como correspondía. Pese a lo anterior, considera que este error no crea derecho. Afirma que los daños de la vivienda del actor no obedecen a hechos de la naturaleza, si no a los que llevaron a cabo terceros.

V.-OBJETO DEL PROCESO. De lo expresado por las partes, tanto en sus pretensiones como argumentos, se trata de un proceso civil de hacienda, mediante el cual, la parte actora requiere que el Banco demandado asuma la cancelación de la póliza que suscribió, con la finalidad de que sean cubiertos los daños que sufrió su vivienda por supuestos movimientos sísmicos. De igual forma, requiere el reconocimiento del daño moral.

VI.- SOBRE EL CASO CONCRETO. La parte actora se apersona a esta sede para solicitar la responsabilidad de la entidad bancaria demandada, al imputarle una conducta omisiva, que consiste en no haber trasladado al Instituto Nacional de Seguros el pago la prima de la póliza que cubría su propiedad dada en garantía del crédito otorgado. Alega que con motivo de movimientos telúricos durante el año 2010, su casa sufrió serios daños. Afirma que al presentar el reclamo ante el Instituto Nacional de Seguros, éste declinó el pago, en virtud de la omisión del demandado. Por su parte, el ente demandado en su defensa reconoce el error, no obstante, considera que no puede crear derecho, ya que no se hicieron los pagos subsiguientes. Alega además, la eximente de el hecho de un tercero, pues acusa que los daños sufridos en la propiedad del actor no responden a movimientos telúricos, si no a movimientos de tierra que hizo una empresa. Al efecto remite al proceso judicial que el actor entabló en contra de una empresa en el año 2007. Para resolver la presente causa, resulta preciso hacer mención al esquema de responsabilidad objetiva que rige las conductas administrativas. Dicho sistema se encuentra en la Ley General de la Administración Pública, a partir de los artículos 190 y siguientes. Este sistema tiene su basamento en la Constitución Política, en los artículos 9, 41 y 194 entre otros. De conformidad con la Ley n.° 6227, antes mencionada, se requiere la convergencia de todos y cada uno de los componentes del esquema, para poder establecer la responsabilidad de la Administración. De ese modo, la conducta que se impute debe ser lícita, ilícita, normal o anormal. A su vez, debe existir un daño, que sea real, efectivo, evaluable e individualizable (artículo 196). Además, debe existir un nexo de causalidad entre la conducta imputada y el daño. Una vez que ha sido esbozado el marco jurídico aplicable y sus componentes lo procedente es analizar el caso concreto, para determinar si la conducta omisiva acusada al demandado conduce a la responsabilidad extra contractual de la Administración. De acuerdo con el elenco de hechos probados no es controvertido el hecho de que el Banco Nacional al otorgar un crédito al actor, solicitó una póliza de incendio y terremoto, denominado Hogar Seguro Dos Mil (hecho probado n.°2). Tampoco lo es, que el Banco accionado aplicó la deducción de la prima de este seguro (hecho probado n.°3), no obstante mantuvo inactiva la póliza por error (hecho probado n.° 9). Por ese motivo, cuando el actor presentó un reclamo al Instituto Nacional de Seguros, para hacer efectiva dicha póliza, por supuestos movimientos telúricos ocurridos en el año 2010, el ente asegurador declinó argumentando lo siguiente: " Al respecto es importante indicar lo estipulado en las Condiciones Generales para la póliza Hogar Seguro 2000, respecto al otorgamiento de la cobertura: "El Instituto indemnizará al Asegurado por la pérdida directa e inmediata que sufran los bienes asegurados (...) siempre y cuando hayan sido incluidas en el contrato de conformidad con lo estipulado en las Condiciones Particulares, y se haya pagado la prima que acredita la protección." Según nuestros registros, a la fecha del evento la póliza indicada no estaba vigente, debido a que dejó de pagarse desde el año 2006. Lo anterior imposibilita al Instituto para realizar la indemnización solicitada. Según lo expuesto, nos vemos en la obligación de proceder con la declinación del caso y el archivo del expediente." (Hecho probado n° 8). En la teoría del caso que plantea el actor, la conducta del Banco y la consecuencia inmediata, que consistió en la declinación del Instituto Nacional de Seguros, lo obliga a resarcir bajo el esquema de responsabilidad supra mencionado. En el presente caso se observa que el Instituto asegurador no ingresó a valorar el fondo del asunto, esto es, si los daños que se reclamaban obedecían realmente a algún movimiento telúrico, dado que era uno de los supuestos de hecho fundamentales, para que la póliza operara. De esa forma, para cumplir con los postulados de la responsabilidad objetiva de la Administración, este aspecto debe estar debidamente acreditado en esta sede, ya que sin este elemento esencial, que se conoce como nexo causal, resulta imposible decretar la responsabilidad administrativa. Si bien es posible calificar la conducta del Banco como anormal, así como visualizar el daño, en la imposibilidad de hacer efectiva la póliza, lo cierto es que es deber del actor acreditar en esta sede el nexo causal de esa conducta con el daño. A los efectos, debió acreditar que los daños de su vivienda fueron causados por movimientos sísmicos. Lamentablemente, en el expediente se cuenta únicamente con el dicho del actor. De manera tal que este hecho trascendental no ha sido acreditado. Al contrastar esta insuficiencia probatoria, con el expediente judicial 07-001446-0164-CI y las actuaciones que allí se encuentran, al Tribunal le surgen dudas sobre la veracidad de la causa directa de los daños que reclama el actor en su vivienda. A esos efectos, se debe destacar que en el año 2007, el actor presentó una demanda en contra de dos partes, una de éstas, una empresa constructora que realizó movimientos de tierra que produjo daños muy similares a los que el actor ha venido alegando en su propiedad. Dentro del ese proceso judicial existió una condenatoria a reparar los daños ocasionados en favor del actor. La sentencia de primera instancia fue confirmada por el superior, e inclusive, fue rechazado el recurso extraordinario de casación. Al no haber aportado prueba de su dicho, como es deber de quien presenta una demanda, de conformidad con lo que dispone el artículo 317 del Código Procesal Civil, de aplicación supletoria, conforme al artículo 220 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, y, al existir prueba aportada por la demandada en la que se pone en duda el origen de los daños, este Tribunal se encuentra imposibilitado de acceder a las pretensiones del actor. Lo anterior, por cuanto, como se reitera, resulta esencial demostrar, para los efectos indemnizatorios, que el actor se encontraba en los supuestos de hecho de la póliza, denominada Hogar Seguro Dos Mil, uno de estos era que los daños ocurridos al bien cubierto fueran producidos por movimientos sísmicos. Siempre en relación con este tema, el Tribunal no puede dejar pasar la contradicción que ha encontrado con este tema del los supuestos movimientos sísmicos, pues en el hecho cuarto de su demanda afirma que los movimientos telúricos ocurrieron en el año 2008. Por otro lado, de acuerdo con la prueba examinada, concretamente, el reclamo ante el Instituto Nacional de Seguros, el sismo que causó los daños fue del año 2010. Esta inconsistencia aumenta aún más la duda que ha mantenido el Tribunal, en relación con la veracidad del origen de los daños de la vivienda del accionante, que le permitan ubicarse dentro del supuesto fáctico indemnizatorio de la póliza. De conformidad con todo lo expuesto, es criterio unánime de este Tribunal, que la demanda debe ser declarada sin lugar y acogerse la excepción de falta de derecho. En lo que respecta a la excepción de hecho de un tercero, se rechaza, dado que técnicamente no es una excepción individual, pues se encuentra comprendida dentro de la falta de derecho alegada, pues comprende el análisis jurídico normativo de fondo, que ya fue analizado en el presente acápite.

VIII.-SOBRE LAS EXCEPCIONES. Se rechaza la excepción de falta de legitimación activa y pasiva, en virtud de que existe una relación jurídica entre el Banco demandado y el actor, producto de un contrato de préstamo, que le permite dirigir sus pretensiones en su contra, de modo tal que cuenta con la legitimación activa suficiente. Por su parte, la entidad bancaria, tiene la suficiente legitimación para ser la parte pasiva. Se acoge la excepción de falta de derecho, de conformidad con lo expuesto en el considerando anterior. Se rechaza la excepción de hecho de un tercero, de acuerdo con lo expuesto anteriormente.

VIII.-SOBRE LAS COSTAS. De conformidad con lo que dispone el artículo 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, el Tribunal no encuentra motivo alguno para exonerar del pago de costas al actor. Se impone el pago de las mismas al actor.

POR TANTO

Se rechaza la excepción de falta de legitimación activa y pasiva, así como la de hecho de un tercero. Se acoge la excepción de falta de derecho. Se declara sin lugar la demanda incoada por el señor Nombre112966 , en contra del Banco Nacional. Se condena al actor a pagar las costas del demandado. Notifíquese Sergio Mena García Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas Luis Eduardo Mesén García 3