France

Written by Simon Ndiaye, Sarah Xerri-Hanote & Romain Schulz

Key developments in 2025

We mentioned in previous reviews the issue of coverage for operating losses when there is no physical damage in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the fact that litigation before various courts of first instance and courts of appeal in France left an impression of chaos.

As in 2024, the Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court) continued to render decisions on this matter in 2025. It is no surprise that decisions are still being issued: the litigation concerns various insurance contracts with different wordings and different exclusion clauses. Moreover, the Cour de cassation must still impose its views on the lower courts.

In four decisions (two rendered on 28 May 2025 and two on 18 September 2025), the Cour de cassation interpreted the condition of coverage requiring that access to the premises be prohibited. Lower courts construed this condition strictly as an absolute and general prohibition, but the Supreme Court decided that it is not necessary to demonstrate a total prohibition of access.

Initially, the litigation concerned mainly restaurants, but there are now decisions regarding hotels. According to a decision rendered on 19 June 2025, hotels cannot benefit from coverage because they were not subject to the national prohibition on receiving the public. However, in a decision rendered on 13 March 2025, a hotel owner obtained coverage. The reason is that the hotel was located in an area of a French département in which the Préfet (the State’s local representative) issued an order extending to hotels the prohibition on receiving the public.

On 18 September 2025, the Cour de cassation reminded that the limit of coverage in force at the date of termination of the policy applies to the entire extended reporting period. Consequently, as the extended reporting period is at least five years (and ten years in certain cases), the limit applies once and not five (or ten) times. This is a strict application of the statutory provisions of article L. 124-5 of the French Insurance Code regarding Professional Indemnity Insurance on a claims-made basis, but the reminder was apparently needed.

The Cour de cassation also revisited the enforceability of the nullity of motor insurance contracts. Since the decision rendered on 20 July 2017 in the Fidelidade case by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the nullity of a motor insurance contract is not enforceable against third parties. The French Cour de cassation adopted this solution on 29 August 2019, but had to revisit two points in 2025.

On 23 January 2025, the French Supreme Court decided that the nullity of the policy is not enforceable against an indirect victim. In this case, the indirect victim was also the policyholder who committed the intentional misrepresentation justifying the nullity. Nevertheless, the nullity is not enforceable.

On 26 June 2025, the Cour de cassation decided that although the nullity is not enforceable against the victim, it is enforceable against the insurer of another vehicle involved. Consequently, the insurer whose policy is null has recourse against the other insurer whose policy is valid and can claim reimbursement of all sums paid to the victims.

In previous reviews, we mentioned the monitoring carried out by the ACPR (Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel et de Résolution, the French insurance supervisory authority) on the remote sale of insurance contracts, particularly by telephone.

An Act of Parliament dated 30 June 2025 amended the French Consumer Code, requiring that the consumer’s consent be obtained beforehand. This will take effect on 11 August 2026 and will apply to all consumers, not only in relation to insurance.

However, since 1 April 2022, the specific regulations governing the sale of insurance by telephone apply where the call has not been solicited, granting time to consider the insurance transaction. This will need to be reconciled with the broader consumer regulations. 

What to look out for in 2026: risks

Corporate social responsibility is a risk factor, particularly for liability insurance such as PI or D&O. It represents not only a source of risk but also a means of mitigation.

On 13 November 2025, the Directive on Corporate Sustainability Reporting and the Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence were heavily revised by the European Parliament. The thresholds for application have been increased with respect to both number of employees and turnover, with the consequence that many companies will no longer be subject to the regulation. Several important obligations have been removed. For example, the duty to develop a climate transition plan has been withdrawn. In addition, the mechanism of harmonised civil liability across the European Union has also been removed.

The draft directives must now be discussed among the European Parliament, the European Council and the European Commission, with the aim of adopting a final text by the end of 2025.

Another risk to monitor is PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances), also known as persistent pollutants.

Legal actions against industrial companies are multiplying in France (as well as in other countries, for instance, the decision rendered on 26 June 2025 in Italy by the Corte di Assise di Vicenza). In March 2025, the Paris water company filed a criminal complaint against persons unknown for pollution of water and soil. In July 2025, citizens of Saint-Louis, in Alsace, filed a criminal complaint regarding pollution of the city’s water supply. PFAS have also been detected in the French départements of Ardennes and Meuse at levels never previously recorded (including in the “chemical valley” of the Rhône), leading to another complaint filed in July 2025.

Simon Ndiaye

Managing Partner

+33 1 53 57 50 41

sndiaye@hmn-partners.com

Sarah Xerri-Hanote

Partner

+33 1 53 57 50 20

sxerri-hanote@hmn-partners.com

Romain Schulz

Of Counsel

+33 1 53 57 50 22

rschulz@hmn-partners.com