Lhe 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 must not « [répondre] losses and damages resulting from an intentional or fraudulent fault on the part of the insured..
They consider that the damage caused by the suicide is the result of a “malicious misconduct”: by committing suicide, the insured certainly did not want to cause the accident, as it happened. product (unlike one who committed “intentional misconduct”). But it made it unavoidable, which made the risk of being linked to their risk coverage disappear, and justifies their denial of warranty.
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, Me Guillaume Tapie, affirms that there can be fraudulent fault – and disappearance of the hazard – only if the insured has had « conscience » the damage he would inevitably cause to others, which the insurer must prove.
The Court agrees with him. On May 20, 2020 (19-14.306), it ordered 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”.
Malicious misconduct
On January 20, 2022 (20-13.245), it confirms this new definition of fraudulent fault, more favorable to victims, against ACM IARD. It overturns the appeal judgment which had satisfied 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), concerning a co-owner, Mr. X, who placed two gas cylinders in his living room, before spreading oil there. petrol and set it on fire, which caused his death, by asphyxiation and burns, but also more than 400,000 euros in damage.
Macif, its insurer, refused to indemnify Axa IARD, the condominium insurer. She asserted that, “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 Court agrees with him. She believes that, “if the main reason for the fire was not the destruction (…) of the building, it was inevitable and could not be ignored by the arsonist, even if it was difficult for him to appreciate its real and final importance ”.
Axa IARD does not wish to communicate on this case, but confirms to the World what “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.