Commentary on Judgment No. 1469 of 2025: Uncovered Risks and Non-Operability of the Policy

The recent ruling No. 1469 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation provides important insights regarding risk limitation clauses in insurance policies. In particular, the judgment focuses on the exception of non-operability of the policy in relation to specific contractual clauses. This article aims to clarify the main legal aspects addressed by the Court and their impact on the relationships between insurers and insured parties.

The Nature of Uncovered Risk Clauses

The Court has established that risk limitation clauses, such as those defining events "not covered" by a policy, must be interpreted strictly. This means that the deduction that an event, although falling within the contract, is not indemnifiable due to a specific clause constitutes a strict exception. Such an exception not only prevents the claim for indemnity but also reflects a potestative right that belongs exclusively to the insurer.

  • The insurer's right to exclude indemnity must be clearly defined in the contract.
  • Failure to comply with administrative provisions may constitute a legitimate reason for refusal of indemnity.
  • Exceptions of non-operability cannot be regarded merely as defensive tools.

The Consequences of the Judgment

In this case, the Court of Cassation overturned a previous ruling on the merits, which had erroneously considered the insurer's exception as a mere defense. This legal error led to a misinterpretation of the possibility of raising exceptions even beyond assertive preclusions. The Court reaffirmed that the exception of non-operability of the policy, especially concerning events caused by non-compliance with regulatory obligations, must be regarded as fundamentally important in the context of the claim for indemnity.

Risk limitation clauses - “Uncovered Risks” - Exception of non-operability of the policy - Nature - Strict interpretation - Reasons - Consequences - Case. The deduction that a certain event, although abstractly falling within the general provisions of an insurance contract, is not indemnifiable due to a specific contractual clause (so-called uncovered risk), constitutes a strict exception, introducing a fact that prevents the claim for indemnity, expressing a potestative right whose exercise is solely at the discretion of the insurer who holds it. (In this case, the Supreme Court overturned the merits ruling that had qualified the exception raised by an insurance company as a "mere defense" - thus considering it admissible even after the expiration of assertive preclusions - which the insurance company had invoked to refuse the policy's operability, citing the contractual clause that excluded insurance coverage concerning events "caused by the intentional failure to comply" with the provisions or administrative authorizations related to the activity performed by the insured).

Conclusions

Judgment No. 1469 of 2025 represents an important precedent for insurance policies and their functioning. It clarifies that risk limitation clauses must be interpreted rigorously and that insurance companies have the right to oppose indemnities when events not covered by specific contractual provisions occur. This decision not only protects companies but also offers insured parties greater awareness regarding their contractual rights and obligations.

Bianucci Law Firm