Riots in New Caledonia : Allianz condemned, the State attempts to withdraw from the situation

---

Publié le 19/01/2026 par Jérôme Goy

INSURANCE LAW

As highlighted by the riots in May and June 2024 in New Caledonia, insurers only have recourse against the State once they have compensated their policyholders. The creation of a “Riots” scheme, introduced into the 2026 Finance Bill by the Senate and rejected by the National Assembly, could reshuffle the deck.

Throughout its turbulent history, New Caledonia had never experienced such a serious crisis. In May and June 2024, numerous shops and businesses were destroyed or severely damaged on the island by riots, with some 3,500 fires reported, leading to an immediate economic crisis and a massive mobilization of compensation mechanisms.

These events opened up a legal battle, marked by numerous insurance claims, civil litigation between policyholders and insurers, and administrative appeals against the state based on the conditions under which law enforcement was carried out. Very quickly, a question arose: who should compensate the affected companies, in what order, and on what legal grounds?

However, public debate has been muddied by persistent confusion between three distinct concepts: national solidarity, state responsibility, and the contractual obligations of insurers. While national solidarity may justify economic support measures, it does not in itself create a general obligation to provide compensation. Similarly, state liability cannot be presumed and is subject to strictly defined legal regimes.

Conversely, compensation for damage caused to businesses is primarily a matter for insurance contracts, within the limits of the cover taken out. Therefore, when an insurance contract is applicable, it is only after the insurers have intervened that the question of recourse against the State can legally arise. This hierarchy of compensation mechanisms, which is often overlooked, needs to be clarified.

The insurer, the primary debtor for compensation to businesses

The affected business must first take action against its insurer, which is the primary debtor for compensation, within the limits of the contract taken out. This principle is all the more important in the case of a “professional multi-risk” contract that includes traditional coverage such as fire or property damage.

This mechanism is based primarily on insurance law, which makes the insurer the contractual bearer of the insured risk in return for the payment of a premium. Therefore, if the loss corresponds to a risk covered under the terms of the contract, the insurer is bound to provide coverage, unless there is a “formal and limited” exclusion, according to the terms of the Insurance Code (1) (and therefore unambiguous).

The liability of the public authorities can only be invoked as a subsidiary measure to the insurance guarantee. It is not intended to replace the insurer when the insurance contract can be invoked.

Therefore, the general clauses written by certain insurers to a large number of policyholders following the riots of 2024, according to which the risk of “riots” was excluded from the contract in the event of fire, such as, for example:

“[…] We remind you that, depending on the circumstances, you may be able to take direct action against the State for the acts of which you have been a victim.

Indeed, Article L211-10 of the Internal Security Code stipulates that the State is civilly liable for damage and harm resulting from crimes and offenses committed, by force or violence, by armed or unarmed groups or gatherings, either against persons or against property […]”.

Allianz found liable despite “riots” exclusion

Proof by example thanks to the ruling of the Nouméa Joint Commercial Court on December 17, 2025 (2), which ordered Allianz to insure a company in the Ducos area of Nouméa, whose premises were burned down during the riots of 2024. As Allianz is one of the leading insurers in New Caledonia and the contractual text in question is relatively widespread, the case judged here is of particular importance.

The insurance contract included several appendices and descriptions of coverage.

To deny coverage for the loss, the insurer invoked the legal exclusion of riot coverage provided for in Article L121-8, paragraph 1, of the New Caledonia Insurance Code. According to the insurer, in the event of riots, the contract only covered the consequences of vandalism and not those of fires. However, the contract included coverage for the consequences of “fire” in both its general and specific terms and conditions. Since the court found that the loss was due to a fire, the judgment held that the said coverage applied.

It can be understood that, implicitly, the court is relying on established case law according to which:

– an exclusion is strictly interpreted and

– the burden of proof of its application to the loss lies with the insurer.

The contradiction between the contractual fire coverage and the legal exclusion, on the one hand, and the lack of evidence demonstrating the application of the “riots” exclusion to the claim, on the other, appears to have motivated this ruling.

The state in a subsidiary rôle

In general, the State may be required to compensate for damage resulting from serious disturbances to public order; its liability is based on principles specific to administrative law. There are two types of State liability:

• Strict liability

Article L211-10 of the Internal Security Code provides for this regime: “The State is civilly liable for damage and harm resulting from crimes and offenses committed, by force or violence, by armed or unarmed crowds or gatherings, either against persons or against property.”

This regime of strict liability of the State, clarified by the case law of the Council of State following the 2005 riots and confirmed by the administrative judge during the “Yellow Vests” movement in 2018, applies to damage committed in the context of demonstrations that degenerate spontaneously. However, the State’s strict liability regime does not apply to damage caused in a premeditated and organized manner outside of any demonstration and without a direct link to the triggering event.

• Liability for negligence

In the event that the State is held liable for negligence, it would theoretically be necessary to prove gross negligence in the event of a security breach.

The State is therefore liable when it has failed to ensure a reasonable level of security even though it had the information and resources necessary to prevent or limit the disturbances. This liability is based on a failure to anticipate risks or a failure to maintain or restore public order, which is a sovereign function par excellence.

It is in this context, where the State appears to be liable for the risk when the insurance contract does not cover, is insufficient or cannot function, that the decisions handed down by the Administrative Court of New Caledonia against the State following the riots of 2024 are to be found.

What responsibility does the state have in response to the riots in New Caledonia?

In several judgments (3) handed down on December 11, 2025, following appeals lodged by Allianz, the Administrative Court of New Caledonia recognized the State’s liability for negligence, based on a failure to anticipate and maintain public order, entitling the subrogated insurer to compensation.

First, the administrative judge referred to Article L111-1 of the Internal Security Code, according to which “Security is a fundamental right and one of the conditions for the exercise of individual and collective freedoms. / The State has a duty to ensure security by ensuring, throughout the territory of the Republic, the defense of national institutions and interests, respect for the law, the maintenance of public peace and order, and the protection of persons and property. / (…)”.

It therefore considers that the Administration was at fault in that it was “aware of the existence of a situation that was dangerous to public order and was in a position to determine the risks to persons and property,” but nevertheless failed to act by deploying sufficient law enforcement officers.

The court expressly rejected the claim of force majeure, ruling that “the events (…) cannot be regarded, despite their violence and scale, as having been of such an unforeseeable nature as to constitute a case of force majeure that would exempt the State from liability,” particularly in view of the serious violence experienced in New Caledonia in the past. The judge made a concrete assessment of the resources deployed, comparing them with the level of threat identified, thus revealing a failure on the part of the State to anticipate events. He considered that, despite repeated warnings and sufficient time to act, the State had failed to deploy sufficient security forces in a timely manner. This failure therefore constituted a fault such as to engage its liability.

In this case, the State’s conviction was subject to one condition: the existence of damage to Allianz. The insurer had already paid compensation to certain policyholders under their contracts. It was then subrogated to the rights of its compensated policyholders, within the limits of the compensation paid. The insurance contract therefore clearly preceded the action against the State. Only the absence of cover by the insurer or insufficient cover by the insurer (in particular contractual limits) could allow a company to bring a direct action against the State for negligence.

A mandatory guarantee that would not solve everything

In this context, what exactly would the mandatory “riot insurance” guarantee, added to the 2026 draft finance bill by a Senate amendment, removed from the debate by an amendment in the Assembly, and potentially reintroduced into the budget if the government invokes Article 49.3 of the Constitution, bring to the table?

As presented, this coverage would extend to operating losses when these are already covered by the contract. Any clause to the contrary is deemed null and void. Thus, the “riot” risk would become a legal basis for coverage imposed on insurers.

The text, as voted by the Senate, also stipulated that the State is not civilly liable, under the crowd control regime, for damage covered by riot insurance when compensation has been paid under this regime (4). Insurers should therefore use the additional premium collected to balance their “claims/premiums” ratio, with no recourse against the State.

This new compulsory insurance regime should also extinguish, for future claims, a large part of the “New Caledonian” type of litigation. However, by making the legal classification of the riot a determining prerequisite for the insurance to apply, it will probably shift the litigation to the classification decision itself (as is sometimes the case for natural disasters, another compulsory insurance). It should be noted that the text would explicitly exclude foreign war and civil war, acts of terrorism, and attacks on automated data processing systems (5) (cyber risk) from the scope of the guarantee.

Finally, the text opens up the possibility for New Caledonia and French Polynesia to enter into an agreement with the State in order to benefit from the scheme, with the possibility of reserving part of the fund’s capacity for additional compensation in New Caledonia (6).

The future of this amendment is still uncertain. What is certain is that by leaving it up to insurers to balance the books of a system in which the state can no longer be held liable, the government is attempting to find a way out of the situation.