Letter from the table: What eleven days closed cost me

RC/RS/2026/T.8 — Letter from the table

To the Resilience Council, 27 June 2026

I support the Reopen Standard. I do so because I know what it means when the water goes down but a small business still cannot open: the bills continue to arrive, the claim is not yet settled, and the owner must make decisions without knowing how long the interruption will last.

On 13 November 2024, heavy rain brought serious flooding concerns to Málaga. Water entered the premises where I work. It rose to about eighteen centimetres in the lowest area. I spent that night moving what I could, taking photographs, and trying to keep water away from the electrical fittings. The following morning, the premises were not safe to use. I closed for eleven days.

I had insurance for the premises and equipment. At first, I assumed that the insurer would handle the claim in the usual way. I notified it, kept photographs, invoices and a list of damaged items, and asked what I should do next. I then learned that damage from extraordinary flooding may fall under the Consorcio de Compensación de Seguros (CCS), provided the relevant property is insured and the policy and premium meet the applicable requirements. A claim can be made to the CCS or handled through the insurer. I had to understand which route applied while also arranging immediate repairs.

I submitted the information requested and kept copies of each document. I was not an expert in insurance terminology. I wanted to know three practical things: whether the damage was covered, what evidence was still needed, and when I could expect a decision. The uncertainty was difficult in its own right. I could not plan repairs or borrowing around an answer that had no clear date.

The costs came in several parts. Drying and electrical work came to about €2,150. Cleaning and replacing damaged fittings cost another €1,280. During the eleven days closed, I estimate that I lost €3,460 in income. That is not the same as profit, but it was money I had expected to use for rent, supplies and ordinary bills. I borrowed €4,800 to keep those obligations moving. The loan had a cost, and it also meant that reopening did not return me to where I had been before the flood.

These amounts are modest beside a large catastrophe. For a very small business, they are not modest. I had to choose what could be paid immediately, what could wait, and whether to spend on work that might later be assessed differently. I also had to keep records at the exact moment when my attention was needed on safety, repairs and the reopening itself.

Spanish insurance law sets duties and time limits for insurers. For instance, Article 18 of the Insurance Contract Act provides for payment of the minimum amount known within forty days of receiving a claim and, in general, payment of the indemnity within three months of the loss. The precise route and applicable rules matter, particularly where an extraordinary risk and the CCS are involved. A clear, published process would help an owner understand who is handling the claim, what is outstanding and what the next date is. A standard decision within thirty days would give small businesses a practical target and a way to identify delays; it should not be presented as a replacement for existing rights.

The bridge-funding part of the proposal matters just as much. A business cannot always wait for the final assessment before paying for drying, repairs or basic continuity. Support within ten days of a declared disaster would not decide the final claim. It would give an owner a chance to keep obligations current while the full assessment proceeds. Continuity-planning support for micro businesses would also be useful before the next storm, when there is still time to protect records, identify essential equipment and make a reopening plan.

UNDRR reports that, in a Japanese survey cited in its SME resilience report, 8% of prepared small and medium-sized enterprises had not recovered sales, compared with 19% of those that were unprepared.¹ I do not take that as a promise that preparation prevents every loss. I take it as a reason to make practical preparation and prompt support

part of resilience, rather than leaving each owner to discover the process during a crisis.

The Reopen Map can help make the days after a disaster visible. It should record not only whether a business is open, but whether it is waiting for an assessment, short of bridge funds, or unable to reopen because basic support has not arrived. That information can show where the system is failing without requiring owners to identify their businesses publicly.

Notes and sources

1. UNDRR, Resilience of SMEs Report. ↩

Sources

1. UNDRR, Resilience of SMEs Report