A mixture of anger and disappointment mingles in the voice of Jean-Pierre Lavenant.
The restaurateur, owner of a brewery in the port of Saint-Goustan, in Auray (Morbihan), confides his “resentment” towards Axa.
"What they are doing is not brilliant and it is dishonest," he enraged.
They put our heads under water, without even keeping their commitments!
"
Like hundreds of colleagues across France, Jean-Pierre Lavenant has taken the insurer to court to obtain compensation for his known operating loss during confinement in spring 2020. For the moment, 58 judgments have been rendered by courts of commerce in France.
Fifteen agreed with the insurance company.
A first appeal judgment in favor of a restaurateur
In this legal standoff, a turning point took place on February 25 in Aix-en-Provence (Bouches-du-Rhône).
Axa was convicted for the first time on appeal.
"This confirms that restaurateurs are in their right", pushes Me Jean-Pierre Tertian, the lawyer for the Marseille restaurateur who obtained the conviction.
The next call must be examined in Montpellier (Hérault), in April.
Axa is considering a possible appeal to the Court of Cassation.
The sling finds its source in the "professional multi-risk" contract, from which 15,000 restaurateurs in France benefit.
READ ALSO>
Health crisis: Axa condemned to compensate the manager of six restaurants in Essonne
One of its clauses provides for compensation after an operating loss in the event of an administrative closure, if it is the consequence of "an infectious disease, murder, suicide, epidemic or death. 'an intoxication ".
The two conditions seem, at first glance, fulfilled in the case of the first confinement to mobilize the guarantee.
But, in this same contract, an exclusion clause provides that compensation does not take place if “at least one other establishment” in the same department is administratively closed for the same reasons.
" That does not make sense !
An epidemic is not confined to a street or a district, wonders Me Guillaume Aksil, who manages 250 files of restaurateurs.
We therefore ask for the cancellation of this exclusion clause in court.
"
"We cover individual closures"
Axa, for his part, considers on the contrary that his clause is "very clear".
“We cover individual closures.
Yes, an epidemic can start from a kitchen and affect fifty people, says Eric Lemaire, spokesperson for Axa France.
From the moment they are group closures, it is no longer insurable.
"
David Rathgeber, owner of L'Assiette (Paris XIVth), which won against Axa in the first instance, deplores a “lack of humanity”.
I lost 130,000 euros.
If they had given me even 30% to cover my fixed costs, I would have dropped the case, he says.
But they persisted and, in addition, they drove the point home!
"
Newsletter It pays me
The newsletter that improves your purchasing power
Subscribe to the newsletterAll newsletters
The chef refers to an amendment sent by Axa to all of its customers at the end of last year.
It purely and simply excludes the mobilization of the guarantee if the administrative closure and the operating loss are consecutive to "an epidemic, a pandemic or an epizootic".
The company, leader in the business and professional market, says it has reacted to the recommendation of the Prudential Control and Resolution Authority (ACPR).
The gendarme of the sector had demanded, in early summer 2020, that all ambiguities be removed in the contracts.
“We followed the suggestions of our regulator,” emphasizes Eric Lemaire.
Our reinsurer had also asked us that the word epidemic no longer appear.
"
Restaurant owners see it as a way of constraining them.
“It's disgusting, gets carried away Thierry Pszonka, chef of the restaurant Les Sens, in Puylaroque (Tarn-et-Garonne).
It gives the impression that they are aware that they are at fault.
And besides, they put the knife to our throats.
According to him, the insurer demanded his signature on pain of seeing all of his contracts terminated.
He chose to leave, unlike the majority of his colleagues.
According to Axa, 75% of its clients have signed the rider.
The insurer refutes the “blackmail” on termination.
" It's wrong !
assures the spokesperson.
If they didn't sign, they weren't covered on operating loss, that's all.
"
