Facts

Parties: [A. AG] (appellant) against the Building Insurance Authority of the Canton of St. Gallen (GVA).

Facts:

  • [A. AG] is the owner of a property in [U.] with two multi-family houses and an underground garage.
  • On July 28, 2014, flood damage occurred to the buildings for which the GVA provided insurance benefits.
  • The GVA requested [A. AG] to implement object protection measures to avoid exclusion from insurance.
  • [A. AG] proposed three protection concept variants but rejected variant III due to high costs.
  • The GVA nevertheless demanded the implementation of variant III and further protective measures.
  • By order of February 16, 2016, the GVA partially excluded the buildings from insurance.
  • [A. AG] unsuccessfully filed an objection, appeal, and complaint.
  • [A. AG] applied to the Federal Supreme Court to overturn the decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court first examines the admissibility of the complaint and finds that it is generally given. The appellant alleges a violation of the right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 Cst.) and an arbitrary finding of fact by the lower court.

The Federal Supreme Court addresses the allegation of violation of the right to be heard and finds that the lower court sufficiently justified its decision and dealt with the essential points. The lower court qualified the manual installation of dam beams as a temporary measure that is only useful with long advance warning. The lower court also included the appellant's claim that the water during the 2014 flood had entered exclusively through the underground garage in its assessment.

The Federal Supreme Court then examines the allegation of arbitrary finding of fact. It finds that the lower court based its findings on the event analysis and a report from the public works department. The appellant has not sufficiently demonstrated that…