The victim exercising the direct action against the insurer is not exempt from the obligation to establish the existence of the insurance contract on which they rely (in this sense, 1st Civ., 29 April 1997, appeal No. 95-10. 564).
On the other hand, this evidence is facilitated by case law. Thus, the injured party can establish this evidence by any means (1st Civ., 14 October 1997, appeal no 95-16.980, Bull. 1997, I, No. 271 ; 1st Civ., 17 July 1996, appeal No. 94-16. 796).
For the victim of the injury, the insurance policy is a simple legal fact, the proof of which is free. This jurisprudential solution is very logical because the victim of the injury is a third party to the insurance contract and this would be impossible proof.
On this point, it was held that the benefit of the insurance contract [being] invoked, not by the insured, but by the victim of the damage third party to that contract, [[] it was therefore incumbent on the insurer to demonstrate, by paying the policy to the proceedings, that it did not owe its guarantee for the loss subject of the dispute ” (1st Civ., 2 July 1991, appeal no 88-18.486, Bull. 1991, I, No. 217).
In practice, the payment of an insurance certificate is sufficient. As a reminder, the certificate of insurance constitutes the presumption of existence of the insurance contract with respect to third parties.