The collapse of a building during an earthquake raises a difficult but concrete question: was the earthquake the sole cause of the damage, or did it bring to light construction deficiencies, poor maintenance, or works carried out without complying with technical rules? I will explain which elements help navigate this issue, because it is not enough to know that the property was old or had not been seismically retrofitted.
Compensation is not automatic, but the earthquake does not automatically rule out civil liability. What matters are the type of structural failure, the condition of the building before the event, who owned it, the work carried out over the years, and the link between those circumstances and the damage suffered. We will also look at the safeguards that may apply to owners, occupants, neighbors, and buyers of recently built properties.
The earthquake alone does not settle the issue of liability
A seismic event can be a decisive cause, but it must be ascertained whether it caused the collapse entirely on its own or whether it acted on an already weakened structure. A pre-existing crack, works that affected load-bearing elements, neglected water infiltration, or original defects can become relevant if they rendered the building unable to withstand stresses foreseeable for the area in which it is located.
Article 2053 of the Civil Code concerns the ruin of a building. The Court of Cassation points out that this liability is connected to the ownership of the property and can be excluded only by proving that the ruin does not depend on construction defects or lack of maintenance, but on an event with autonomous causal efficacy. The earthquake must therefore be assessed on a technical and causal level: its occurrence does not, by itself, resolve the question of who should be held liable. Court of Cassation review, ruling no. 34401 of 2023.
The cause of the collapse must be reconstructed with precision. The case of a construction that yields because the intensity of the earthquake exceeds what the structure could reasonably sustain is different from one where parts already degraded, altered by subsequent works, or built with defects collapse. This same distinction affects the identification of those responsible and the damages that can be claimed.
Lack of seismic retrofitting: what it really means
The lack of seismic retrofitting does not prove fault on its own. An existing building does not automatically become unlawful simply because it was built before the technical standards currently in force. It is necessary to establish which rules applied to the construction and to the works carried out over time, whether specific deficiencies manifested themselves, and whether those deficiencies played a role in the damage.
The regulations distinguish interventions on existing constructions. The Technical Standards for Construction dedicate a chapter to existing constructions and distinguish, among other things, repairs or local interventions, improvement, and retrofitting. This classification matters because a limited work does not necessarily equate to an intervention intended to revise the seismic behavior of the entire building. Ministerial Decree of January 17, 2018 on Technical Standards for Construction.
Structural works require specific procedures. In seismic zones, anyone carrying out construction, repairs, or additions must submit the prior notice and project required by Article 93 of the Consolidated Law on Building; the project must be accompanied by the designer's certification regarding compliance with applicable technical standards. Article 93 of Presidential Decree no. 380 of 2001.
Not all interventions follow the same authorization path. Article 94-bis of the Consolidated Law distinguishes interventions relevant to public safety from those of lesser relevance or devoid of relevance, also taking into account the seismic classification of the territory. For relevant interventions, work cannot begin without the prior authorization of the competent regional technical office. Article 94-bis of Presidential Decree no. 380 of 2001.
Who can be held liable for the collapse
The owner is the primary party to consider. For liability arising from the ruin of a building, Article 2053 of the Civil Code looks at the ownership of the property or a real right of enjoyment. Mere use of the building is not enough to apply this rule to an occupant; this does not rule out that other conducts, if proven, may become relevant according to different principles of civil liability.
In a condominium, the origin of the structural failure matters. If the collapse involves foundations, load-bearing walls, roofs, or other common elements, the issue may involve the entire condominium. If instead the damage depends on works carried out in a single unit, an addition, or the modification of a structural element, it is necessary to distinguish the part involved, the person who carried out the work, and the concrete effect produced on the safety of the building.
The builder can be held liable for serious defects or ruin. Article 1669 of the Civil Code concerns buildings intended for long duration which, within ten years of completion, ruin in whole or in part, present an evident danger of ruin, or show serious defects due to soil defects or construction defects. The complaint must be made within one year of discovery, and the right is time-barred in one year from the complaint: these are deadlines that require particular attention. Institutional reference to Article 1669 of the Civil Code.
Designer, construction director, and contractor are not liable solely for the assignment received. Their potential liability depends on the breach of a precise professional or contractual duty and on the causal connection with the damage. For this reason, the names found in building permits are a starting point, not a ready-made answer: it is necessary to understand who designed, executed, directed, or modified the specific work that affected the structural failure.
What damages can be claimed and how to prove them
Compensation concerns the damage effectively connected to the collapse. Issues that may arise include the loss or damage to the property, the assets contained within it, the expenses necessary to cope with the consequences of the event, and, if there are personal injuries, the harm to health. In the event of death, damages suffered by relatives may also be relevant, but their existence and extent are not indiscriminately presumed.
The evidence must separate the damage from its cause. Previous and subsequent photographs, inspection reports, evacuation or uninhabitable property orders, projects, seismic paperwork, authorizations, work invoices, and health documentation can serve different functions. A useful document is not only one that shows the severity of the damage: it also helps to understand whether there was a pre-existing deficiency and who had the duty to prevent it.
A post-earthquake technical assessment alone does not attribute civil fault. The inspection may be decisive for securing the area or certifying unlivability, but it does not replace the assessment of the causal link between the building's deficiency and the damage. When the cause is controversial, the difference between an injury caused by the earthquake and an injury favored by a structural defect must be explained with verifiable technical elements.
Two distinct paths: claims against the owner versus claims against the builder
The action against the owner of the building looks at the ruin and its cause. For those who have suffered damage from the collapse, the central point is to prove the damaging event and the connection to the ruin; the owner can release themselves by proving that the damage derives from an autonomous factor and not from construction defects or poor maintenance. This path may also be relevant for those who are not owners of the collapsed building, such as a neighbor or a passing pedestrian who suffered damage.
The action against the builder has its own prerequisites and deadlines. Article 1669 requires that ruin, danger of ruin, or serious defects manifest themselves within ten years of the completion of the work. This discipline must not be confused with the owner's liability: the first check concerns the original quality of the work and special deadlines; the second concerns the ruin of the building and the party who owns it.
Public aid or insurance coverages do not identify the civilly liable party. An emergency grant, an insurance indemnity, or a reconstruction measure may have their own rules. Before considering them a complete solution, it is necessary to read the provision or the policy and distinguish what is covered from any residual damage and the liability of the person who caused it.
First choices after a collapse or a serious structural failure
Safety comes before the reconstruction of liabilities. If the building presents a danger of further collapses, the instructions of the authorities and the technicians assigned to the emergency must be followed. It is not prudent to re-enter, remove rubble, or alter structural parts outside of the necessary and authorized measures, because risks to people may exist and because the state of the premises can be relevant for understanding the cause of the damage.
Preserving available information avoids subsequent confusion. It is useful to collect in an orderly manner photographs, communications received, municipal acts, technical reports, estimates, and invoices relating to the property, without overlapping documents from different works. For a condominium building, assembly minutes, resolutions on maintenance or structural works, and documents showing whether an intervention was approved, postponed, or executed also become important.
The question to ask is not just "who pays?". First, it is necessary to clarify which part of the building failed, what defect is contested, when it appeared, who had the power and duty to intervene, and what damage resulted from it. If you already have these essential elements, I can help you frame the legal protection compatible with the documents and the applicable deadlines.
Frequently asked questions
Can I claim compensation if the building was old and not seismically retrofitted?
Yes, but the age of the building is not enough. You must be able to link the damage to a construction defect, insufficient maintenance, or works carried out in an irregular or inadequate manner. More recent technical standards do not automatically render the owner of a property built many years ago liable; the concrete situation of the structure and subsequent interventions matter.
Does the earthquake always free the owner from liability?
No, the earthquake does not automatically eliminate liability. The owner can invoke an autonomous causal factor only if the collapse does not depend on construction defects or lack of maintenance. If the shock caused an already degraded or structurally compromised part to fail, the link between those deficiencies and the damage can remain relevant.
In a condominium, is the condominium always liable?
It depends on the part that failed and its cause. A failure of foundations, facades, or roofs can involve common assets; damage caused by internal works or modifications carried out by a single owner requires a separate assessment instead. Knowing that the building is a condominium is not sufficient: the structural element involved and the relative liabilities must be identified.
Does the ten-year period apply to every claim against the builder?
The ten-year period concerns the discipline of Article 1669. It operates for ruin, evident danger of ruin, or serious defects due to soil defects or construction defects, manifested within ten years of the completion of the work. To this are added a complaint within one year of discovery and the statute of limitations within one year of the complaint.
What documents is it useful to keep after a collapse?
Keep both the evidence of the damage and that of its possible cause. Photographs, unlivability or evacuation orders, technical reports, building and seismic paperwork, contracts and work invoices, condominium minutes, and health documentation are useful. Each document serves to clarify a different fact: extent of the prejudice, state of the property, works carried out, and parties involved.