A French couple whose cars were stolen while they slept with a window open during a summer heatwave have lost a nine-year legal battle against their insurer.
In a decision handed down on recently, France's highest civil court, the Cour de Cassation, ruled that an insurer was entitled to refuse compensation because the theft occurred after burglars entered through an open window, thereby breaching a condition of the insurance contract.
The case has attracted widespread attention in France because it highlights how seemingly minor details in insurance policies can determine whether a claim is paid, even where homeowners are clearly victims of crime.
The incident dates back to the night in August 2017 in the Mediterranean town of La Seyne-sur-Mer, near Toulon.
According to court documents, the couple left a sliding patio door slightly open to cool their apartment during exceptionally warm weather. While they slept, burglars climbed onto a balcony more than three metres above ground level and entered the property through the opening.
The intruders stole the keys to the couple's two cars from inside the apartment before making their way to the parking area and driving off with both vehicles.
The following morning, the couple discovered the theft and reported it to police before submitting a claim to their insurer, Avanssur, the online insurance subsidiary that has since been absorbed into AXA France.
The insurer refused to pay.
The Contract Clause
At the centre of the dispute was a provision in the policy dealing with vehicle theft.
The policy covered thefts carried out using a vehicle's keys or electronic unlocking devices only if those devices had themselves been stolen from a dwelling that had been entered clandestinely despite all access points being locked and all other openings closed.
Because the patio door had been left ajar, the insurer argued that the contractual condition had not been satisfied.
The homeowners maintained that the clause effectively excluded coverage and therefore should have been prominently highlighted in the policy documentation under French insurance law.
A lower court in Toulon ruled in favour of the couple and ordered the insurer to pay approximately €30,000 in compensation. The judges accepted that the disputed wording operated as an exclusion clause and therefore should have been displayed more prominently within the policy documents.
However, the insurer appealed.
In April 2024, the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence overturned the ruling, concluding that the requirement to keep doors and windows secured was not an exclusion of cover but a fundamental condition of the insurance guarantee itself.
That distinction proved decisive.
Under French law, exclusion clauses are subject to strict visibility requirements, whereas conditions defining the scope of cover are not.
The homeowners then appealed to the Cour de Cassation, hoping the country's highest court would reinstate the original judgment.
Instead, it unanimously sided with the insurer.
In its ruling, the Cour de Cassation stated that the clause was clearly designed as a preventive measure against theft and formed part of the conditions under which cover was granted. The judges held that the insurer was entitled to require policyholders to keep vehicles secured and to store keys inside premises with locked access and closed openings.
The court therefore confirmed that the provision constituted a condition of cover rather than an exclusion from cover.
As a result, the insurer had no obligation to compensate the couple.
The ruling also left the homeowners liable for legal costs incurred during the lengthy litigation.
Related Reading:
