The ruling of the Court of Appeal of Rennes of 9 December 2025 (No. 23/03706) illustrates with renewed rigour the extent of the lender’s obligations in matters of group insurance. By this decision, the appellate court censures the practice of hiding behind the delivery of standardised documents to justify the absence of advice tailored to the specific situation of the borrower.
CA Rennes, 2e ch., 9 dec. 2025, n° 23-03706
I. The Facts: A Guarantee Refusal Against a Background of Occupational Risk
On 6 July 2011, the spouses [R] took out three mortgage loans to finance their project. In accordance with banking practice, they subscribed to the group insurance policy, but the guarantees taken out were limited to the risks of death and total and irreversible loss of autonomy (PTIA).
On 26 June 2017, Mr [R], who worked as a plasterer (enduiseur), suffered a fall resulting in an extended period of sick leave. The bank refused to activate the insurance for the coverage of the loan repayments, citing the absence of subscription to the “incapacity to work and disability” guarantee.
Dismissed at first instance by the Tribunal judiciaire of Saint-Nazaire on 30 March 2023, the borrowers brought the dispute before the Court of Appeal of Rennes.
II. The Legal Basis: The Inadequacy of Standardised Information
The Court of Appeal based its decision on a fundamental distinction between the obligation to inform (delivery of documents) and the duty to advise (devoir d’éclairer — personalised advice).
A. Restatement of the Principles of the Assemblée plénière
The ruling explicitly refers to well-established case law, inherited notably from the Court of Cassation (Cass. ass. plén., 2 March 2007, No. 06-15.267), holding that:
“The banker […] is bound to advise [the borrower] on the adequacy of the risks covered to the borrower’s personal situation, the delivery of the notice alone being insufficient to satisfy this obligation”.
B. The Bank’s Failure in Light of the Borrower’s Profile
For the Court, the delivery of a “standardised form listing all the guarantees that could be offered to them” was deemed insufficient in view of Mr [R]’s profile. The judges highlighted two critical points:
- The heightened occupational risk: Mr [R] “exercised a profession exposing him to an increased risk of accident” (work at height as a plasterer).
- The household’s economic dependency: “the couple’s income came primarily from his activity”.
The Court concluded that:
“By merely offering a minimum guarantee, without drawing the borrowers’ attention to the interest of choosing the incapacity to work and disability guarantee, the bank failed in its obligation to advise them”.
III. Compensation: Damages Based on Loss of Chance
The Court of Appeal rejected the bank’s argument that the borrowers would not have subscribed to the guarantee even if they had been better informed. It held that the failure to inform caused a “loss of a serious chance of being compensated” (perte de chance).
Assessment of Damages
Compensation was calculated based on what the insurer would have paid had the guarantee been subscribed. In the absence of precise evidence of the actual loss of income, the Court applied the minimum guarantee of 50% of the repayments, i.e. a base of €14,467.92.
The Court set the damages at €13,021.12, representing 90% of the theoretical sum that the insurer should have paid.
IV. Significance of the Decision: A Recommendation for Credit Institutions
This judgment reminds banks that they must be able to demonstrate that they have personally informed the client of the specific benefits and additional cost of optional guarantees in light of their profession.
Final order:
- Reversal of the judgment of 30 March 2023.
- Order against the Caisse de crédit mutuel to pay €13,021.12 in damages to the spouses [R].
- Order against the bank to pay costs and €3,000 under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
