- fr
- en
Companies too often neglect their business interruption insurance policies
At a time when Getlink is set to receive €55 million from insurers for the suspension of its high-voltage electricity connection business, experience shows that business interruption coverage is often poorly calibrated. Ancillary costs or estimates below value—there are many pitfalls to avoid.
Published on December 18, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. by AGEFI
Fires, floods, etc. Every year, several thousand French companies are hit by a major disaster. The resulting business interruption and financial losses can cause companies to suffer heavy losses. In fact, they must carefully define their business interruption insurance policy. “And while coverage is essential, it is often poorly calibrated,” emphasizes Guillaume Aksil, a lawyer specializing in insurance law at the Lincoln Avocats Conseil law firm.
The latest example of this type of risk is provided by Getlink. The former Eurotunnel Group announced on Thursday that it had reached an agreement with its insurance companies for compensation for operating losses on its Eleclink high-voltage electrical connection following the suspension of activity between September 25, 2024, and February 5, 2025. The total amount of compensation is €55 million, of which €5 million has already been recorded in the first half of 2025, the group said in a statement.
In this type of insurance, there are “all risks” policies and those known as “named perils” policies, which cover a limited number of risks. “However, today, in a context of tightening prices and restricting supply, insurers are increasingly offering their customers limited risk contracts,” according to Jérôme Goy, a partner at the Enthémis law firm, which advises companies on these insurance matters.
Price tightening
As a reminder, business interruption insurance aims to restore the company to the financial situation it would have been in if the loss had not occurred. “The company’s activities must correlate with what is insured. And the turnover for year N must correspond. However, there may be discrepancies depending on the activities, or contracts may sometimes be poorly drafted and contain omissions,” continues Mr. Aksil. Not to mention that several technical parameters can limit its scope, such as compensation periods that are too short (often 12 months). However, according to the lawyer,” the guarantee must allow the company time to recover.”
Other factors can also be obstacles, such as underestimated declared values, resulting in excessively low ceilings, deductible periods that weigh heavily in the event of immediate interruption, or even variable definitions of gross margin, depending on the insurer. “Failure to properly anticipate these factors can significantly reduce the final compensation payout, or even leave the company with a cash deficit at a critical moment,” argues the lawyer. The triggering of the guarantee can also be considered the first area of vulnerability.
Additional costs
Companies must also be vigilant about additional costs, which must be reported and thus included in the insurance contract. “Let’s take the case of temporary and accelerated repair costs or compliance costs. In this scenario, let’s imagine that the company’s buildings burn down. In this case, let’s imagine that the company’s buildings burn down. “Take, for example, the costs of temporary and accelerated repairs or the costs of bringing a building back into compliance. In this scenario, let’s imagine that the company’s buildings burn down. They will have to be rebuilt, but they will also have to be brought up to new standards. This can be expensive for the company. Similarly, there is coverage for uncollectible debts. A company that loses all its customer data and receivables will need to consider taking out a guarantee known as “all interest loans.” But let’s also mention the costs of re-referencing with a customer following a disaster, … there are dozens of similar cases,” says Jérôme Goy of the Enthémis law firm.
Do not dilute responsibility
Finally, the multiplicity of potential risks complicates compensation. “We are seeing a cascade of triggering events where it is becoming increasingly difficult to identify the single cause of the risk. Take the example of a fire in a warehouse. Were fire extinguishers installed? Is this the responsibility of the internal fire network maintenance manager or an external maintenance company? However, responsibility must not be diluted. Surrounding yourself with the right people from the very first hours of the Surrounding yourself with the right people from the very beginning of the incident ensures a better recourse—and therefore better compensation—against the person or persons responsible who may be identified at a later date,” says Maître Aksil.
These so-called “cascading” situations put pressure on traditional business interruption contracts and force insurers to review their terms and conditions: limits, exclusions, and guaranteed periods.
Challenging your contract
In fact, Mr. Aksil naturally advises companies, as part of his profession, to seek the assistance of a lawyer or legal expert to review their contracts for a second legal opinion. The insured company can also call on a technical expert, which is particularly useful when calculating losses.
However, it is important not to overlook the importance of expert assessments upstream. This is because calculating the loss can lead to complex discussions, such as calculating the sales that would have been made or the level of customer base that would have been maintained. These differences can ultimately delay compensation, weaken cash flow, and compromise recovery.
It is therefore advisable to “challenge your insurance policy every year, at the time of the annual renegotiation, to ensure that it is consistent with the risks, with a legal review in addition to that which the broker may provide.”