The impact of Covid-19 on the global insurance industry – Italy
Ernesto Pucci
Macchi di Cellere Gangemi Law Firm, Italy
e.pucci@macchi-gangemi.com
Maria Luigia Di Vincenzo
Macchi di Cellere Gangemi Law Firm, Italy
m.divincenzo@macchi-gangemi.com
Italy | |||
General questions | Yes/ No/ N/A | Additional comments, if any. | |
1 | Does the country that you are reporting on follow common law jurisprudence? | No | |
2 | If the answer to the above question is no, does the country you are reporting on follow a civil code? Please describe the judicial system in short. | Yes | The Italian system is civil law. In general terms, courts base their decisions on the legal framework in force on a case-by-case basis. The core principles of the system are entirely codified into a normative system which is the primary source of law. Decisions issued by the courts are binding within the frame of reference of each individual case submitted, but do not constitute the base for judicial precedent for other future cases as in common law systems. Italian judges are not bound by court precedents. However, the decisions of the Supreme Court of Cassation (Italy’s highest court) provide a reference point in the interpretation and application of law to individual cases. |
3 | Please provide a brief description of the legal framework applicable to insurance coverage disputes in the country you are reporting on. In so doing, please consider the following questions: | In Italy, the rules governing insurance and reinsurance contracts and business are spread over a number of different statutory instruments. Articles 1882 to 1932 of the Italian Civil Code (ICC) set out the general principles governing insurance contracts. Several other provisions of the ICC are, or can be, relevant to insurance and reinsurance contracts. Furthermore, the Private Insurance Code (Legislative Decree No 209 of 7 September 2005, the ‘CPI’) provides the main legal framework for the exercise of insurance and reinsurance activities and business. Some laws also deal specifically with mandatory insurance contracts (eg, the Motor Insurance Act No 990 of 29 April 1969). There are also a number of secondary regulatory provisions (regulations and letters to the market) issued by the Italian Institute for the Supervision of Insurance (IVASS) which is the competent supervisory authority for insurance companies and insurance activities, also by the National Commission for Companies and Markets (CONSOB) and the National Commission for the Supervision of Pension Funds (COVIP). There is no special jurisdiction or courts which deal with insurance disputes, and these claims are usually decided by civil courts. When a policy is entered into with a consumer, the competent court is the one where the insured is resident or domicile, although alternative criteria for jurisdiction may apply at the plaintiff's discretion. As to the procedural rules generally applicable to all disputes relating to insurance contracts, the claimant shall start compulsory mediation proceedings before initiating the legal proceedings in court, which constitutes a prerequisite for action. A court claim can therefore be lodged only if the mediation proceedings proved unsuccessful, as may be the case if the defendant does not attend mediation or the parties do not reach an agreement during the proceedings. | |
4 | Does the insured bear the burden of establishing coverage of a claim, or does the insurer bear the burden of establishing no coverage? Please give a short description of the legal basis in your country. | N/A | There is not a specific burden of proof in insurance disputes. The general principle under Article 2697 ICC applies. Therefore: the claimant must give evidence of all the facts on which the claim is based, including, for instance, the fact that the event at issue is covered by the policy; the defendant claiming the lack of such facts (including the coverage) or claiming that the right has been modified or extinguished must prove their objection. With specific regard to the burden of proof in insurance claims, the Supreme Court of Cassation (judgment no 1558/2018) stated the following legal principles: (1) in the action brought by the insured against the insurer concerning the payment of the insurance compensation, the insured must prove that the risk occurred falls within the general category of risks covered by insurance policy; (2) if the insurance contract contains clauses which limit the right of compensation by the insured, the existence of the factual conditions that grounds such limitations must be proven by the insurer. |
5 | Are coverage provisions in policies interpreted broadly or is there a presumption in favour of coverage? Please give a short description of the legal basis in your country. | There is no presumption in favour of coverage or, on the contrary, in favour of the exclusion of coverage. The burden of the proof lies with both the insured and insurer with respect to their claim (see the response to Question 4). As to the interpretation of clauses of insurance contracts, a decision by the Supreme Court (judgment no 8324/2019 of 19 February 2019) stated that in case of contractual forms drafted by the insurer, pursuant to Article 1370 ICC, in case of doubt the clause shall be interpreted against the party which drafted the contract (ie, usually the insurer). | |
6 | Are exclusions interpreted narrowly or is there a presumption against finding that an exclusion to coverage applies? Please give a short description of the legal basis in your country | No | There is no presumption in favour of coverage or no coverage, see the response to Question 4. |
7 | Are there universally accepted definitions for:
If the answer is yes, please give a short description of each definition and the legal basis for that definition (ie, a rule of law, case law etc). | No | There are no legislative provisions (both primary and secondary legislation) with a precise definition of these terms. Usually, the insurance company provides for a definition of such terms in the contractual forms in its general terms and conditions. In general terms: event There is no definition for ‘event’ in any legislative provisions relevant in the insurance sector. However, the concept of ‘event’ may refer to the notion of ‘sinistro’ which is commonly used in the insurance sector although there is no legislative definition. Scholars have defined the term ‘sinistro’ with regard to the private insurance sector as ‘the fact capable of causing the damage and not the complete harmful event’. (P Corrias, claims made, rischio e sinistro nell’assicurazione della responsabilità civile: prime riflessioni alla luce dell’ordinanza di rimessione n 1465/2018 in Rivista di Diritto Bnacario). occurrence There is no definition of ‘occurrence’ in Italian law, the term in Italian could be seen as a synonymous of event. damage There is no specific definition for damage. In general terms, the term damage is interpreted as ‘any prejudice caused to the legal-patrimonial sphere of a subject’. cause There is no definition of cause or originating cause in the Italian legislative framework. natural peril The term natural peril is similar to the Italian ‘catastrofe o evento naturale’. The Italian framework does not provide for a definition of ‘catastrofe o evento naturale’. In general, it can be defined as an exceptional, discontinuous and unpredictable event of natural origin. force majeure There are several mentions to force majeure in the Italian legislative framework. For example, force majeure is described by Article 1256 ICC as ‘cause not attributable to the debtor which makes it impossible to fulfil the obligation’. Moreover, Article 1467 ICC provides, in case of synallagmatic contract, to terminate the contract when the obligation due by a party has become excessively onerous due to the occurrence of ‘extraordinary and unforeseeable events’, unrelated to the normal risk of the contract. It is worth mentioning, the Judgment by the Supreme Court, Criminal law section, no 965/1997 that established which cause can be considered force majeure: ‘the force majeure must be presented as a particular impediment to the performance of a certain action and must be such as to make vain every effort of the agent to overcome it and also must not be attributable to him in any way. By its very definition, force majeure must be absolute and, that is, not winnable or surmountable in any way’. loss There is no definition of ‘loss’, we may consider it as equal to the Italian term ‘damage’. Therefore, please see under ‘damage’. consequential loss There is no definition of consequential loss in the Italian Legislative framework. Even though ‘consequential loss’ is not recognised in the ICC, its legal boundaries may be found in relation to the ICC’s legal provisions regarding damages for breach of contract as the term consequential losses may be considered equal to the ‘danno indiretto’ (indirect damage/loss) provided by ICC. In general, Article 1218 ICC provides that the party that does not fulfil its contractual obligations (either because it does not perform its obligation or its performance is not as agreed or unreasonably delayed), is liable for damages vis-à-vis the other party, unless it proves that the non-performance or delay was due to the impossibility of performance for a cause not imputable to it. The ICC sets out the criteria for assessing monetary compensation for breach of contract. The compensation must take into account: (1) the proper damaged borne by the party (danno emergente) but also the ‘loss of profit’ (lucro cessante), insofar as they are a ‘direct and immediate consequence of the non-performance’ or delay (Art 1223 ICC); and (2) the damages which were ‘foreseeable’ when the relevant contract was executed, to the extent that the breaches are not due to wilful misconduct of the breaching-party (Art 1225 ICC). The ‘direct and immediate’ requirement laid down in Article 1223 ICC does also apply to determine the monetary compensation arising from tort liability. Moving from the above distinction between ‘danno emergente’ and ‘lucro cessante’, the Supreme Court has adopted an extensive interpretation of the above-mentioned ‘direct and immediate’ requirement. (Italian Supreme Court, Judgment no 11609/2005). Specifically, with reference to damages arising from contractual and tort liability, the Supreme Court ruled that ‘compensable damage’ includes both: ‘direct damages’, meaning all those damages that are direct consequence from the unlawful event; and ‘indirect damages’ meaning all those damages that are not direct consequences of the unlawful conduct, provided that they occur as a ‘normal effect’ of said unlawful conduct according to the so-called ‘theory of causal regularity’. In other words, indirect damages can be compensated only if, according to the appreciation of the person of ordinary diligence, they are likely to occur as a consequence of the unlawful conduct. |
Loss causation | Yes/ No/ N/A | Additional comments, if any. | |
8 | Did the country that you are reporting about issue lockdown, stay-at-home or no-travel restrictions in response to Covid-19? | Yes | |
9 | If the answer to the question above is yes, were such orders issued nationally, by state/region or by local city/town. Please give a short description of the issuing authority and the orders issued. | In general terms, the restrictions were issued by the government. Regions and local authorities were allowed, under certain conditions, to impose stricter anti-contagion measures. Between March and June 2020, the government implemented a national lockdown, where with the specific restrictions, industries, businesses, public offices and schools were closed, and a stay-at-home order. Between October 2020 and June 2021, the government imposed a curfew and adopted a system which allowed for different and more restrictive measures on a regional basis, depending on the level of contagion. This was known as the ‘Colour system’. Decisions were made by the government by means of Administrative Decree (Decree of the Prime Minister, DPCM) and subsequently by Legislative Decree. | |
10 | If the answer to the above question is yes, were the lockdown, stay-at-home or no-travel restrictions mandatory or recommended? | They were mandatory and any infringement was sanctioned. | |
11 | If the country that you are reporting about did issue lockdown, stay-at-home or no-travel restrictions, were those orders suspended or revoked at any point in time? If the answer is yes, please give a short description of the timeline. | Yes | March 2020 – 18 May 2020 From 8 March, the Lombardy region, together with 14 additional northern and central provinces in Piedmont, Emilia-Romagna, Veneto, and Marche, were put under lockdown. Two days later, on 10 March, the government extended lockdown measures to the whole country. The lockdown measures were: (1) a stay at home order; (2) the closure of all schools and universities, non-essential industrial and commercial activities; and (3) the prohibition of public gathering in churches, museums and leisure areas. May – September 2020 Stay-at-home orders and closure of business, restrictions concerning the leisure areas were revoked. Public gatherings were allowed under specific circumstances. October 2020 – June 2021 On 4 November 2020, the government announced new measures, dividing the country into red, orange and yellow zones, depending on the severity of the pandemic. A national curfew from 2200 to 0500 was implemented, as well as the compulsory weekend closure of shopping centres, and online education for secondary schools.
June 2021 – date The government has modified the parameters of the various zone, but the zone system is still in place. Nevertheless, most of the country is in white zone, with a few regions currently in the yellow zone. |
12 | If the answer to the above question is yes, were subsequent lockdown, stay-at-home or no-travel restrictions issued at any point in time? Please give a short description of the timeline. | Yes | Please, refer to the timeline in the response to Question 11. |
13 | Has the country that you are reporting about issued judicial opinions or guidance analysing whether Covid-19 is a ‘cause’ of insured loss? | No | We are not aware of any judicial opinions or guidance, but see the response to Question 27. |
14 | Has the highest court in the country you are reporting about issued judicial opinions or guidance analysing whether Covid-19 is a ‘cause’ of insured loss? If the answer is yes, please give a short description of the conclusions in the judicial opinions or guidance. | No | No. Please consider that in Italy the average duration of first instance proceedings is three-to-four years. This is presumably the reason why there have been no relevant Covid-19 decisions by the Supreme Court. |
15 | If the answer to the question above is yes, did the highest court in the country you are reporting about determine that losses related to Covid-19 were ‘caused’ by the virus? Please give a short description of the conclusions in the judicial opinions or guidance. | N/A | |
16 | If the answer to the above question is no, did the highest court in the country you are reporting about determine that losses related to Covid-19 were ‘caused’ by government lockdown or stay-at-home orders? Please give a short description of the conclusions in the judicial opinions or guidance. | No | Please see the response to Question 14. |
17 | Has the country that you are reporting about issued judicial opinions or guidance analysing whether Covid-19 is an ‘originating cause’ of insured loss? If the answer is yes, please give a short description of the conclusions in the judicial opinions or guidance. | N/A | |
18 | If the highest court in the country you are reporting about has not issued judicial opinions or guidance analysing whether Covid-19 is a ‘cause’ of insured loss, have other courts in the country issued such opinions? | No | Please see the response to Question 14. |
19 | If the answer to the above question is yes, have courts in the country you are reporting on interpreted this issue consistently? In other words, is there uniformity in jurisprudence as to whether Covid-19 is a ‘cause’ of insured loss? Please give a short description of the conclusions in the judicial opinions or guidance. | N/A | |
20 | If the answer to the above question is yes, do courts in the country you are reporting about hold that losses related to Covid-19 were ‘caused’ by the virus? Please give a short description of the conclusions in the judicial opinions or guidance. | N/A | |
21 | If the answer to the above question is no, do courts in the country you are reporting about determine that losses related to Covid-19 were ‘caused’ by government lockdown or stay-at-home orders? Please give a short description of the conclusions in the judicial opinions or guidance. | No | We are not aware of any court decision determining whether losses related to Covid-19 were caused by the government lockdown or stay at home order. |
22 | Has the highest court in the country you are reporting about issued judicial opinions or guidance analysing whether Covid-19 is an ‘originating cause’ of insured loss? | No | |
23 | If the highest court in the country you are reporting about has not issued judicial opinions or guidance analysing whether Covid-19 is an ‘originating cause’ of insured loss, have other courts in the country issued such opinions? If yes, please give a short description of the conclusions in such judicial opinions or guidance. | No | |
24 | Has the country that you are reporting about issued judicial opinions or guidance analysing whether Covid-19 is a covered ‘event’? | No | No judicial opinion or guidance has been issued. Reference can be made to Law Decree No. 18 of 17 March 2020 (Decreto Cura Italia), Article 42, paragraph 2 of the Cura Italia Decree. Please, see the detailed response to Question 27. |
25 | Has the highest court in the country you are reporting about issued judicial opinions or guidance analysing whether Covid-19 is a covered ‘event’? Please give a short description of the conclusions in the judicial opinions or guidance. | No | No, please see the response to Question 14. |
26 | If the answer to the question above is yes, did the highest court in the country you are reporting about determine that losses related to Covid-19 were covered ‘events’? Please give a short description of the conclusions in the judicial opinions or guidance. | N/A | |
27 | If the highest court in the country you are reporting about has not issued judicial opinions or guidance analysing whether Covid-19 is a covered ‘event’, have other courts in the country issued such opinions? | Yes | The Italian legislator issued provisions aimed at protecting and indemnifying workers (in particular, the medical personnel) in cases of Covid-19. If contracted in the workplace, Covid-19 was considered equivalent to an accident at work, and therefore provided with the same treatment as accidents at work. Regarding the possibility of those suffering from Covid-19, a distinction must be made between persons indemnified by the National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work (INAIL) for injury losses occurring at work, and those infected with Covid-19 outside of the workplace. Please note that INAIL protects workers against physical and economic damages arising from accidents caused by workplace activities and profession-related illness. The government intervened in the early stages of the pandemic. In fact, paragraph 2 of Article 42 of the Decreto Cura Italia stated that INAIL would have indemnified in case of ascertained Covid-19 infection in the workplace, by qualifying the Covid-19 virus as an injury occurred at work. In practice, for the purposes of such employees’ protection, the above emergency legislation qualified an employee contracting Covid-19 as an accident (‘infortunio’). Scholars discuss whether the provisions of Article 42 is to be considered as a general principle, and therefore also applicable in the private insurance sector. The debate comprises two opposing positions: (1) according to a first approach, the reference to an ‘accident’ (‘infortunio’) on an accident policy must be interpreted in accordance with Article 42 of the Decreto Cura Italia decree and, consequently, Covid-19 is considered an accident. Under this interpretation, any policy covering death or injury due to an ‘accident’ would automatically include cover for death or injury due to Covid-19, unless it is specifically excluded in the policy; or (2) according to a second approach, Article 42 cannot and should not be applied beyond the system of INAIL employee’s cover so that Covid-19 infection would not be an ‘accident’ but rather a ‘disease’ that is not covered by the ‘private’ accident policy. Under the first approach, any ‘private’ accident policy would normally cover death or injury due to Covid-19 infection, whereas under the second, it would not. The second approach has been followed by the Court of Pesaro (judgment of 11 June 2021) which stated that Article 42 of the Decreto Cura Italia cannot be extended to the private insurance sector since it is a provision addressed to the working environment and responding to specific social and mutualistic purposes. In any event, the Court held that Article 42 is not applicable to the private sector with regard to the contracts signed before the pandemic, while for insurance contracts entered into after the pandemic an interpretative investigation on the boundaries of application of the coverage, in the absence of explicit exclusions, could lead to different outcomes. Finally, as already mentioned, note there has been no decision by the Supreme Court on this issue. |
28 | If the answer to the above question is yes, have courts in the country you are reporting on interpreted this issue consistently? In other words, is there uniformity in jurisprudence as to whether Covid-19 is a covered ‘event’? Please give a short description of the conclusions in such judicial opinions or guidance. | N/A | There are not enough decisions of merit courts on that matter, so we cannot state whether the issue has been interpreted consistently. |
29 | If the answer to the above question is yes, do courts in the country you are reporting about hold that losses related to Covid-19 are covered ‘events’? Please give a short description of the conclusions in the judicial opinions or guidance. | No | There have been few opinions/decisions, and none of them by the Supreme Court. It is possible to cite the Order by the Court of Pesaro (see response to Question 27) which has not extended the protection granted by Article 42 of the Cura Italia Decree to the private insurance sector. Therefore, on the grounds of the said merit Court decision, it is possible to say that, to date, there have been no decision considering losses relating to Covid-19 as covered events. |
30 | If the answer to any of the above questions regarding your country’s jurisprudence was no, please comment on whether there are any other official sources or authorities that have issued contributions to the interpretation of Covid-19 in the context of loss causation. | We are not aware of any other official sources or contributions by authorities in the context of loss causation. | |
Aggregation of claims | Yes/ No/ N/A | Additional comments, if any. | |
31 | Does the country you are reporting on permit aggregation of claims arising out of a single originating cause? Please give a short description of the legal basis. | Yes | The Law does not provide specific rules for claims aggregations. It is a matter regulated by the parties in the insurance policies. Many policies provide for a series occurrence coverage under which, in principle, several losses occurring from the same cause, regardless of the number of events, are deemed to be a one loss event. In this case, the date of the first event is considered as the date on the basis of which all the following events linked by the same cause will be covered, if occurred during the same period of validity. Usually the insurer covers the damage in excess of a higher aggregate deductible. |
32 | Does the country you are reporting on permit aggregation of claims arising out of a single cause? Please give a short description of the legal basis. | Please see response to Question 31. | |
33 | Does the country you are reporting on permit aggregation of claims arising out of a single event? Please give a short description of the legal basis. | Yes | Please see response to Question 31. |
34 | Does the country you are reporting on use an accepted test for determining whether claims can be aggregated? For example, does the country you are reporting on apply to four unities test to determine whether aggregation is appropriate? Please give a short description of the legal basis. | N/A | |
35 | Have courts in the country you are reporting on issued jurisprudence concerning whether insureds can aggregate claims arising out of Covid-19? Please give a short description of the legal basis. | No | |
36 | Has the highest court in the country you are reporting about issued judicial opinions or guidance concerning whether insureds can aggregate claims arising out of Covid-19? Please give a short description of the conclusions in such judicial opinions or guidance. | No | Please see response to Question 14. |
37 | If the answer to the question above is yes, did the highest court in the country you are reporting about determine whether insureds can aggregate claims arising out of Covid-19? Please give a short description of the conclusions in such judicial opinions or guidance. | N/A | |
38 | If the highest court in the country you are reporting on has not issued such jurisprudence, have other courts in the country you are reporting on interpreted this issue consistently? In other words, is there uniformity in jurisprudence as to whether insureds may aggregate claims arising out of Covid-19? Please give a short description of the conclusions in such judicial opinions or guidance. | N/A | There have not been enough decisions on the subject-matter. |
39 | If the answer to the above question is yes, do courts in the country you are reporting about permit insureds to aggregate claims arising out of Covid-19? Please give a short description of the conclusions in such judicial opinions or guidance. | N/A | |
40 | Do the courts in the country you are reporting on permit an insured to aggregate claims related to multiple properties or business locations arising out of Covid-19? Please give a short description of the conclusions in such judicial opinions or guidance. | No | Any claim shall be filed before the competent court according to the criteria provided for by the ICC procedure. Whenever multiple claims can be brought against the same defendant and the competent court is the same, the insured may aggregate the claims (even if originating from different insurance contracts). However, when claims are against different defendants and to be brought before s different competent court and/or arise out from different insurance contracts, the insured cannot aggregate the claims. |
41 | Do the courts in the country you are reporting on permit an insured to aggregate claims related to multiple lockdown or stay-at-home orders arising out of Covid-19? Please give a short description of the conclusions in such judicial opinions or guidance. | N/A | Please see response to Question 40. |
42 | Have courts in the country you are reporting on issued jurisprudence concerning whether cedents can aggregate claims arising out of Covid-19? Please give a short description of the legal basis. | N/A | |
43 | If the answer to the above question is yes, have courts in the country you are reporting on interpreted this issue consistently? In other words, is there uniformity in jurisprudence as to whether cedents may aggregate claims arising out of Covid-19? Please give a short description of the conclusions in such judicial opinions or guidance. | N/A | |
44 | If the answer to the above question is yes, do courts in the country you are reporting about permit cedents to aggregate claims arising out of Covid-19? Please give a short description of the conclusions in such judicial opinions or guidance. | N/A | |
45 | If the answer to any of the above questions regarding your country’s jurisprudence was no, please comment on whether there are any other official sources or authorities that have issued contributions to the interpretation of Covid-19 and aggregating claims. | No | |
Property damage | Yes/ No/ N/A | Additional comments, if any. | |
46 | Have courts in the country you are reporting on issued jurisprudence concerning whether losses arising from Covid-19 qualify as property damage losses? Please give a short description of the legal basis. | No | To date, there has been no decision addressing the problem in Italy. |
47 | Has the highest court in the country you are reporting about issued judicial opinions or guidance concerning whether losses arising from Covid-19 qualify as property damage losses? Please give a short description of the conclusions in such judicial opinions or guidance. | No | Please see response to Question 14. |
48 | If the answer to the question above is yes, did the highest court in the country you are reporting about determine whether losses arising from Covid-19 qualify as property damage losses? Please give a short description of the conclusions in such judicial opinions or guidance. | N/A | Please see response to Question 14. |
49 | If the highest court in the country you are reporting on has not issued such jurisprudence, have other courts in the country you are reporting on interpreted this issue consistently? In other words, is there uniformity in jurisprudence as to whether losses arising from Covid-19 constitute property damage? Please give a short description of the conclusions in such judicial opinions or guidance. | No | |
50 | If the answer to the above question is yes, do courts in the country you are reporting about permit insureds to aggregate claims arising out of Covid-19? Please give a short description of the conclusions in such judicial opinions or guidance. | N/A | |
51 | If the answer to any of the above questions regarding your country’s jurisprudence was no, please comment on whether there are any other official sources or authorities that have issued contributions to the interpretation of Covid-19 and property damage. | As far as we know, there are no additional sources. | |
Exclusions | Yes/ No/ N/A | Additional comments, if any. | |
52 | Has Covid-19 been deemed a ‘natural peril’ in the country you are reporting on? Please give a short description of the legal basis and relevant jurisprudence. | N/A | The pandemic risk may be regarded as a ‘rischio catastrofale’ (‘catastrophe risk’), namely a risk which, by its very nature, is quite exceptional, discontinuous and unpredictable, as well as extremely burdensome because of its consequences. |
53 | Has Covid-19 been deemed force majeure in the country you are reporting on? Please give a short description of the legal basis and relevant jurisprudence. | N/A | |
54 | Is Covid-19 acknowledged as a notifiable disease in the country you are reporting on? Please give a short description of the legal basis and relevant jurisprudence. | Yes | All the reported cases of Covid-19 shall be notified to the Ministry of Health within 24 hours, pursuant to the Circular of the Ministry of Health No. 999/2020 dated 22 January 2020. |
55 | Is it common for insurance policies issued in the country you are reporting on to include a pandemic or virus exclusion? Please give a short description of the legal basis and common insurance practice. | No | In general, it is not common for an insurance policy to include a pandemic or virus exclusion. Notwithstanding the above, in common property damage insurance policies, the coverage of losses arising from a pandemic risk constitutes an extension being the loss considered as an indirect damage of the pandemic. Following the Covid-19 pandemic, different insurers have started to offer coverage for indirect damages caused by pandemic. As per the legal basis, reference is made to Article 1912 ICC, which does not consider pandemics. According to this provision, unless otherwise provided in the contract, the insurer is not obligated for the losses arising from earthquakes, wars or riots. |
56 | Have any courts in the country you are reporting on determined that a pandemic or virus exclusion is void as against public policy in the context of Covid-19? Please give a short description of the legal basis and relevant jurisprudence. | N/A | |
57 | Have any courts in the country you are reporting on otherwise determined that a pandemic or virus exclusion is unenforceable in response to Covid-19? Please give a short description of the legal basis and relevant jurisprudence. | N/A | |
58 | If the answer to any of the above questions regarding your country’s jurisprudence was no, please comment on whether there are any other official sources or authorities that have issued contributions to the interpretation of Covid-19 in the context of exclusions. | N/A | |
Regulatory oversight | Yes/ No/ N/A | Additional comments, if any. | |
59 | Have insurance regulators in the country you are reporting on issued directives concerning coverage for claims arising out of Covid-19? Please describe the regulations that have been implemented. | No | |
60 | Are regulators requiring or encouraging insurers to provide grace periods to insureds to make payments on premiums? If yes, please give a short description of the legal basis and relevant guidance. | No | There has been no such intervention by the insurance regulator. Measures such as the postponement of deadlines or the prorogation of the term of validity of the policy have been brought about on a voluntary basis. IVASS has neither undertaken action nor implemented relief measures for the insured during the pandemic. |
Government action | Yes/ No/ N/A | Additional comments, if any. | |
61 | Has the government in the country you are reporting on implemented relief measures for losses sustained as a result of Covid-19? | Yes | |
62 | If the answer to the above question is yes, are the relief measures available to both individuals and businesses? | Yes | |
63 | Briefly describe the types of relief measures available to individuals and businesses. | From March 2020, the government issued several relief measures for both individuals and business. Here is a summary of the main measures. Business
Individuals
Source: Law-Decree No 9/2020, Law-Decree No 18 del 2020 (the so-called ‘Cura Italia’); Law-Decree No 23/2020 ( ‘Liquidità’); Law-Decree No 34/2020 ‘Rilancio’; Law-Decree No 104/2020 ‘Agosto’; Law-Decree No 137/ 2020 ‘Ristori’; Law-Decree No 149/2020 ‘Ristori-bis’; Law-Decree No 154/2020 ‘Ristori-ter’; Law-Decree No 157/2020 ‘Ristori-quarter’, Law-Decree No 137/2020; Law-Decree No 41/2021 ‘Sostegni’; and Law-Decree No 73/2021 ‘Sostegni-bis’. | |