Background
M. [R], who was riding a moped, was injured in a July 23, 2008 traffic accident involving a vehicle insured by Generali IARD. An initial nonjudicial medical examination determined that his condition had stabilized on January 18, 2010. Generali made compensation offers on December 15, 2011 and March 11, 2014, both of which M. [R] rejected.
M. [R] sued Generali for bodily-injury compensation on November 23 and 29, 2021. The Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal held that the ten-year limitation period had expired on January 18, 2020 and dismissed all claims as time-barred. M. [R] argued that Generali’s offers had interrupted the limitation period or, alternatively, that the insurer had subsequently waived the completed limitation defense by arranging another medical examination from January through June 2020.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation rejected the argument that the compensation offers interrupted prescription. Because Article L. 211-9 of the Insurance Code legally requires an insurer to make an offer to a person suffering bodily injury, making such an offer does not by itself expressly or implicitly acknowledge the victim’s right to compensation. That remains true when the offer does not identify any limitation or exclusion on recovery.
The Court nevertheless quashed the appellate judgment in its entirety. Under Articles 2226 and 2251 of the Civil Code, conduct unequivocally showing an intention not to invoke a completed ten-year limitation period may constitute tacit waiver. The Court of Appeal therefore had to examine whether Generali’s organization of a nonjudicial medical assessment shortly after January 18, 2020—addressing both M. [R]’s losses and their causal connection to the accident—unequivocally demonstrated such an intention. The case was remanded to a differently constituted panel of the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A statutorily required insurance offer does not, without more, acknowledge a bodily-injury victim’s entitlement to compensation or interrupt prescription.
- The result is unchanged merely because the offer fails to state possible limitations or exclusions from compensation.
- An insurer’s conduct after prescription has accrued, including arranging a medical examination of loss and causation, may support tacit waiver if it unequivocally shows an intention not to rely on the limitation defense.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes sharply between interruption of a running limitation period through acknowledgment and waiver after the period has expired. French motor insurers do not interrupt prescription merely by fulfilling their statutory duty to make a compensation offer, but their later claim-handling conduct can require a fact-specific inquiry into waiver.
For litigants, the ruling makes the timing and purpose of post-prescription medical examinations potentially decisive. The Court did not itself find that Generali waived prescription; it required the court on remand to determine whether the insurer’s conduct established an unequivocal waiver.