Court of Cassation, 23 October 2019, Appeal number: 18-14140
The Court of Cassation recalls that the exclusion clauses must be proved by the insurer, unlike the guarantee conditions, the proof of which is the responsibility of the insured.
(…) That in so ruling, whereas it was the responsibility of Helvetia assurances, whose principle of guarantee was acquired when the goods had been received damaged as a result of the break in the cold chain at the latest on the fifth day following the arrival of the ship at the port of Lomé, to establish a possible cause for exclusion from its guarantee, the Court of Appeal, which reversed the burden of proof, violated the abovementioned text ;
FOR THESE REASONS, and without the need to rule on the other objections (…)”
In other words, if the insurer objects to an exclusion clause, you must first check whether or not the insurer proves that the conditions for applying such an exclusion are met.
For example, if theft without a break-in is excluded, it is up to the insurer to prove the absence of a break-in by producing an expert report, for example, which mentions this circumstance in a probative and certain way.