Ihe families in which a person has committed suicide may, in addition to their sentence, fear having to pay large sums of money, when this suicide has caused damage to third parties (fire of a building, derailment of a train). Some insurers refuse to insure this type of claim, citing the insurance code (article L. 113-1), according to which they should not ” [répondre] loss and damage resulting from an intentional or fraudulent fault on the part of the insured”.
They consider that the damage occurring during a suicide results from a “deceitful fault”: by committing suicide, the insured certainly did not want to cause the accident, as it happened. product (unlike someone who has committed an “intentional fault”). But it made it inevitable, which eliminated the hazard that had to be linked to their risk coverage, and justified their refusal of guarantee.
This conception of fraudulent fault displeases the victims, such as the SNCF. Recently, she unsuccessfully claimed some 60,000 euros from Macif, insurer of a man, Mr. W, who threw himself under a train as it arrived at Saint-Cyr-l’Ecole station (Yvelines). And some 20,000 euros to Assurances du Crédit Mutuel (ACM) fire, accidents and miscellaneous risks (IARD), insurer of a woman who had placed herself on a level crossing in Feuchy (Pas-de-Calais), at the time where the train passed. So she went to court.
When these cases arrive before the Court of Cassation, the SNCF lawyer, Mand Guillaume Tapie, affirms that there can be fraudulent fault – and disappearance of the hazard – only if the insured has had “consciousness” the damage he would inevitably cause to others, which the insurer must prove.
The Court agrees with him. May 20, 2020 (19-14.306), it orders Macif to compensate SNCF. In fact, she judges that “Mr. W’s intention was to end his life”. According to her, “nothing allowed to conclude that he was aware of the harmful consequences of his act for the SNCF”; thereby, “insurance had not lost all randomness”.
willful misconduct
January 20, 2022 (20-13.245), it confirms this new definition of fraudulent fault, more favorable to victims, against ACM IARD. She breaks thecall stop which had given satisfaction to ACM, “without characterizing the awareness that the insured had of the inescapable nature of the harmful consequences of her action ».
For there to be a fraudulent fault, it is necessary that “the means used” with the aim of ending his life ” [dépassé] very largely what is necessary for the sole purpose of committing suicide”. This is what the Court ruled on May 20, 2020 (19-11.538), about a co-owner, Mr. X, who placed two gas cylinders in his living room, before spilling gasoline there and setting it on fire, which caused his death, by asphyxiation and by burns, but also more than 400,000 euros in damage.
Macif, its insurer, refused to compensate Axa IARD, insurer of the co-ownership. She affirmed than, “Beyond his desire to commit suicide, Mr. X wanted to cause significant damage to [son] building “, as evidenced “his desire to cause a strong explosion”. The courtyard proves him right. She believes that, “if the main reason for the fire was not the destruction (…) of the building, this was inevitable and could not be ignored by the arsonist, even if it was difficult for him to appreciate its real and definitive importance”.
Axa IARD does not wish to communicate on this case, but confirms to the World than “the procedure in such events is to inquire about possible heirs then, if there are none, to get in touch with the tax services”. To be reimbursed for sums advanced.