Limitation Period for Road Accident Compensation: Can an Insurer’s Settlement Offers Interrupt the Time Limit?

French Court of Cassation, Second Civil Chamber, 17 September 2026, Appeal No. 24-21.177

When a road accident victim negotiates compensation with an insurer, they may assume that settlement offers or ongoing discussions prevent their claim from becoming time-barred. The French Court of Cassation has clarified an important point: an offer of compensation does not, in itself, interrupt the limitation period. However, steps taken by the insurer after the limitation period has expired may, depending on the circumstances, indicate a waiver of its right to rely on the limitation defence.

1. The facts: a medical examination arranged after the limitation period had expired

A moped rider was injured in a road traffic accident on 23 July 2008. Following an initial medical examination arranged on an out-of-court basis, the date of stabilisation of the victim’s injuries (consolidation) was set at 18 January 2010.

The insurer made two offers of compensation, in December 2011 and March 2014. The victim rejected both offers.

The ten-year limitation period expired on 18 January 2020. However, just a few days later, the insurer arranged a further medical examination, which continued until June 2020, in order to assess the victim’s injuries and determine whether they were attributable to the accident.

The victim eventually brought legal proceedings for compensation in November 2021.

The Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal dismissed the claims as time-barred. The victim then appealed to the French Court of Cassation.

2. An offer of compensation does not amount to an acknowledgment of liability

The first issue before the Court of Cassation concerned the effect of the insurer’s offers on the limitation period.

Under Article 2240 of the French Civil Code, acknowledgment by a debtor of the right of the person against whom the limitation period was running interrupts that period.

The victim argued that the offers of compensation, which did not refer to any limitation or exclusion of their right to compensation, demonstrated that the insurer had acknowledged that right.

The Court of Cassation rejected this argument.

It noted that, under Article L. 211-9 of the French Insurance Code, insurers are legally required to make an offer of compensation in the circumstances prescribed by law. They are therefore under a legal obligation to make an offer, irrespective of whether they are willing to acknowledge the victim’s entitlement to compensation.

Consequently, an offer of compensation does not, in itself, constitute an acknowledgment of the victim’s right to compensation, even if the offer does not mention any limitation or exclusion of that right.

The offers made in 2011 and 2014 therefore did not interrupt the limitation period.

3. Can an insurer waive its right to rely on an expired limitation period?

The second issue was decisive.

Article 2251 of the French Civil Code allows a party to waive a limitation period that has already expired. Such a waiver may be implied, but it must arise from circumstances that unequivocally demonstrate the intention not to rely on the limitation defence.

In this case, the insurer arranged a further medical examination just days after the ten-year limitation period had expired, in order to assess the victim’s injuries and their connection with the accident.

The Court of Cassation held that the Court of Appeal should have examined whether this step could demonstrate an unequivocal intention to waive the benefit of the limitation period.

It therefore quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal, differently constituted.

Importantly, the Court of Cassation did not rule that arranging an out-of-court medical examination after the limitation period has expired automatically amounts to a waiver. Rather, it required the lower court to examine the circumstances of the case to determine whether the insurer’s intention to waive the limitation defence had been sufficiently established.

4. What are the practical implications for road accident victims?

This judgment highlights two essential precautions.

First: do not assume that an insurer’s settlement offers interrupt the limitation period.

Under Article 2226 of the French Civil Code, claims for compensation for personal injury are generally subject to a ten-year limitation period running from the date on which the initial or aggravated injury stabilises.

An insurer’s settlement offers do not, in themselves, extend that period.

It is therefore essential to establish the date of stabilisation, identify any events that may have interrupted the limitation period, and review the steps taken throughout the compensation process.

Second: carefully examine the insurer’s conduct where the limitation period appears to have expired.

A medical examination arranged after the expiry of the limitation period may be relevant when assessing whether the insurer has waived its right to rely on the limitation defence. However, the circumstances must be examined as a whole, including the nature and purpose of the steps taken and their timing.

This judgment is particularly relevant to victims whose claims have remained under discussion with an insurer even though the applicable limitation period may have expired.

Read the judgment

Have you been injured in a road traffic accident Nice ?

Limitation periods can jeopardise a compensation claim, even where discussions with the insurer are ongoing. Conversely, certain steps taken by an insurer may warrant a detailed legal assessment.

As a lawyer admitted to the Nice Bar, I assist victims with compensation claims and with disputes arising with insurance companies.

If you are unsure about the limitation period applicable to your situation or the legal implications of the steps taken by your insurer, you can contact me to discuss your case.