Contact 
LEXIKON
Vacation Time: When Should You Turn Off the Water Supply?
For many people, vacation time is the best time of the year. But while you’re relaxing and unwinding, your home often remains unoccupied for an extended period. This poses risks, particularly the danger of water damage from plumbing, which can cause significant damage without being noticed. Insurance policies often include so-called “72-hour clauses” for this scenario, which limit insurance coverage. The Supreme Court’s decision of June 24, 2026, 7 Ob 80/26d (www.ris.bka.gv.at/jus), provides important guidelines for interpreting these clauses and clarifies when a home is considered to be adequately supervised despite the owner’s absence.
Facts of the Case
In the case at hand, the owner of an insured home was on vacation for 14 days. He had failed to shut off the main water supply before leaving. During his absence, his daughter, who lived in the neighborhood, visited the house every two days. Her visits were not merely brief check-ins; she watered the plants, collected the mail, checked emails, did laundry, and her three-year-old son played inside the house. Between April 15 and 17, 2024, significant water damage occurred. The insurance company refused to cover the damage. It cited a clause in the General Insurance Conditions stating that in “buildings unoccupied or unused for more than 72 hours,” the water supply systems must be shut off. The insurance company argued that the daughter’s visits did not constitute “use” as defined in the terms and conditions, and therefore the plaintiff had committed gross negligence by failing to shut off the water supply, thereby violating his contractual obligations (safety regulations).
Legal Ruling by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed the insurance company’s appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had granted the plaintiff insurance coverage. The Supreme Court’s reasoning is based on the interpretation of the disputed clause. According to established case law, general insurance terms and conditions must be interpreted as they would be understood by an average, reasonable policyholder. The apparent purpose of a provision must always be taken into account. Any ambiguities are to the detriment of the insurer, which drafted the clauses.
“Inhabited” or “Used”—A Crucial Alternative
The core issue lay in the interpretation of the phrase “uninhabited or unused buildings.” The Supreme Court clarified that the word “or” creates an alternative here. Accordingly, the obligation to shut off the water supply exists only if the building is neither inhabited nor used. The insurance company argued that “used” was merely a more specific description of “occupied.” The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation. If that had been the intention, the clause could simply have referred to “unoccupied buildings.”
What Constitutes “Use”?
The decisive question was therefore whether the daughter’s activities could be classified as “use” of the house. The Supreme Court affirmed this. The daughter’s regular visits, lasting several hours, during which she not only briefly checked on the house but also actively used it for various purposes—such as doing laundry, tending to plants, and supervising her child—constitute “use” within the meaning of the insurance terms and conditions. These activities go far beyond a mere “occasional visit,” which, according to the clause, would not be sufficient. Since the house was thus considered “in use,” the 72-hour deadline was not triggered, and the plaintiff was under no obligation to shut off the water supply.
Practical Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision provides important clarity for policyholders. A home is not automatically considered “unoccupied” during a vacation-related absence if a trusted person is regularly on site—for more than just brief check-ins—and actively uses the home. Watering flowers, handling the mail, or even doing laundry may be sufficient to avoid the obligation to shut off the water supply. However, for coverage in the event of damage, it is crucial that this regular and substantial use can be proven when necessary and that the insurance terms and conditions do not exclude it.
