Storm Austen has been named, and it is heading for the Channel and the French Atlantic coast. The United Kingdom’s Met Office has issued an amber warning, Ireland’s authorities have put orange warnings in place, and in France Météo-France activated yellow wind alerts from Wednesday 21 October 2026, with the worst expected over the north-west of the country on the evening of Thursday 22 October and into Friday 23 October, bringing rain and a heavy swell alongside the gusts, according to actu.fr. If you own a house, a flat or a rental investment in France and you live abroad, this kind of announcement raises a very practical question: what does French law expect you to do before, during and after the storm, and who pays for what breaks?
This guide answers that question for non-resident owners. It follows the paper trail a foreign owner should build from the first alert, explains how French home insurance handles storm losses and the separate catastrophe naturelle (natural disaster) procedure, allocates repair duties between landlords and tenants, covers emergency works in copropriété (co-ownership) buildings, and sets out what happens when a tile, a tree or a fence ends up damaging the neighbour. Each point is anchored in the statute or the court decision that actually says it, because after a storm everybody has an opinion, but only the text and the case law decide who pays.
I. Secure the insurance position in the first days
The hours around the storm decide the fate of the claim. French insurance law gives the policyholder real protection against unfair forfeitures, but it rewards owners who notify quickly, photograph everything and keep every receipt. A foreign owner who is not on site should organise this now, before the wind rises, by designating someone who can enter the property and act.
A. Declare the loss immediately and build the paper trail
French law fixes a floor under the claim deadline that no policy can go below. Article L. 113-2, 4°, of the Insurance Code provides that the insured must notify the insurer of any loss likely to trigger cover as soon as the insured learns of it and at the latest within the period set by the contract, and that this period cannot be shorter than five working days. The direct link to the article in force reads article L. 113-2 of the Insurance Code. The statute fixes the floor in these terms: « Ce délai ne peut être inférieur à cinq jours ouvrés. » In plain English, the clock starts when you learn of the damage, and your contract cannot give you fewer than five working days from that moment. It can give you more, and an extension can be agreed with the insurer, but it cannot give you less.
The Cour de cassation enforces that floor strictly. In a judgment of 21 January 2021, the Second Civil Chamber held that where the forfeiture clause invoked by the insurer set a notification period shorter than the five-working-day legal minimum, that clause could not be held against the insured, and it quashed the appeal decision for breach of articles L. 113-2, 4°, and L. 111-2 of the Insurance Code. The official decision is published here: Cass. 2e civ., 21 January 2021, no. 19-13.347. The Court put it this way: « Il s’en déduit que l’assureur ne peut opposer à l’assuré une déchéance pour déclaration tardive lorsque le contrat applicable ne comporte pas de clause l’édictant ou lorsque la clause la prévoyant n’est pas conforme à ces dispositions, qui n’autorisent pas d’autres modifications conventionnelles que la prorogation du délai de déclaration de sinistre. » In other words, no clause, or a clause below the legal floor, means no forfeiture for late notification, period.
A second protection matters just as much. Even where the policy does contain a valid forfeiture clause, the insurer can only rely on it by proving that the delay actually harmed it. The statute says so expressly (article L. 113-2 of the Insurance Code): « Lorsqu’elle est prévue par une clause du contrat, la déchéance pour déclaration tardive au regard des délais prévus au 3° et au 4° ci-dessus ne peut être opposée à l’assuré que si l’assureur établit que le retard dans la déclaration lui a causé un préjudice. » It adds a second shield, in the same article: « Elle ne peut également être opposée dans tous les cas où le retard est dû à un cas fortuit ou de force majeure. » That means the insurer must demonstrate concrete prejudice, not merely assert that late notice is bad in principle. On 9 April 2026 the Third Civil Chamber censured an appeal court that had accepted an insurer’s vague claim of an objectively aggravated risk without identifying any actual loss caused by a four-month delay in notification. The judgment is here: Cass. 3e civ., 9 April 2026, no. 24-12.608. The Court recalled the rule in one sentence: « Selon ce texte, la déchéance pour déclaration tardive d’un sinistre ne peut être opposée à l’assuré que si l’assureur établit que ce retard lui a causé un préjudice. » In English: late notification alone is never enough; the insurer must prove what the delay cost it.
These protections do not remove the need for speed. They protect owners who act reasonably, not owners who wait. From the foreign owner’s perspective, the checklist is concrete. First, read the policy today and note the exact notification channel and period it sets, keeping in mind the five-working-day floor. Second, mandate in writing someone local, a gestionnaire (managing agent), a neighbour or a family member, who may enter, photograph and take emergency measures if the storm hits while you are abroad. Third, after the event, photograph every room and the exterior before anything is moved, keep broken materials until the insurer’s expert (loss adjuster) has visited, and keep every invoice for emergency work such as tarpaulins, boarding or pumping. Fourth, send the notification in a traceable form and state the date on which you learned of the damage, because that date starts the clock. Owners of Paris property who need local support can turn to the team described on our Paris real estate law page, but whoever assists you, the paper trail is what wins claims.
B. Storm cover versus catastrophe naturelle: ask the insurer the right question
After a major weather event in France, two different insurance tracks can apply to the same night of wind and rain, and confusing them is the most common mistake foreign owners make. The first track is the ordinary storm cover of the assurance multirisque habitation (comprehensive home policy). Whether wind damage to your roof, shutters or garden wall is covered, with what deductible and what exclusions, depends on the wording of your own contract, so the question to put to the insurer in writing is simple: is this event covered as tempête (storm) under my policy, and under which clause. Do not assume the answer, and do not let anyone tell you that a storm is automatically a natural disaster in the legal sense. It is not.
The second track is the statutory catastrophe naturelle procedure, which is a creature of statute, not of the policy wording. Article L. 125-1 of the Insurance Code extends the guarantee of property insurance contracts to the effects of natural disasters, and it makes the whole mechanism depend on an interministerial order: « L’état de catastrophe naturelle est constaté par arrêté interministériel qui détermine les zones et les périodes où s’est située la catastrophe ainsi que la nature des dommages résultant de celle-ci couverts par la garantie visée au premier alinéa du présent article. » The article in force is here: article L. 125-1 of the Insurance Code. In English, this means that without a published order covering your commune, the period and the type of damage you suffered, the natural-disaster track does not open. With the order, insurers must insert the corresponding cover into the contracts concerned, as article L. 125-2 of the same code requires: article L. 125-2 of the Insurance Code.
Two practical consequences follow for a foreign owner watching Storm Austen approach. First, wind alone does not always trigger the procedure: historically it is floods, mudslides, subsidence and similar perils of abnormal natural intensity that lead to orders, while pure wind damage is often handled under the ordinary storm clause of the policy. One storm can therefore split into two files, with the flooded cellar going down the catastrophe naturelle track and the torn-off shutters going down the ordinary storm track. Ask the insurer to classify each head of damage separately. Second, the interministerial order and the policy together fix the claim window for the natural-disaster track, so the day an order is published for your commune, check both documents immediately and declare without waiting. The statute also extends the mechanism to emergency rehousing costs where the main residence has become unfit for habitation on safety or health grounds, which matters to owners whose French house is their declared principal home and to landlords whose tenants must be relocated.
Keep one more distinction in mind. The insurer’s loss adjuster works for the insurer. For significant damage, a foreign owner may appoint their own expert d’assuré (policyholder’s adjuster), and the two experts then hold a joint inspection, called expertise contradictoire (adversarial inspection). Never sign a final settlement, a quittance (release), while damage is still appearing, because cracks and damp can develop for weeks after the water enters. Photograph, declare, mitigate, and keep the file open until the full extent is known.
II. Allocate the repairs: who fixes, who pays, who decides
Once the insurer is notified, the next question is who must carry out and fund the repairs. The answer differs depending on whether the property is rented, held in co-ownership, or damaged by something that came from next door. French law allocates these duties precisely, and the courts apply the allocation even when the storm was exceptional.
A. The property is rented out: landlord duties, tenant conduct and the Paris path
French residential leases place a heavy maintenance duty on the landlord. Article 6 of the Act of 6 July 1989 obliges the lessor to maintain the dwelling in a condition fit for its intended use and to ensure the tenant’s peaceful enjoyment throughout the lease. The Cour de cassation drew the consequence in a judgment of 23 May 2019: « Attendu que le bailleur est obligé, par la nature du contrat et sans qu’il soit besoin d’aucune stipulation particulière, d’entretenir la chose louée en état de servir à l’usage pour lequel elle a été louée, et d’en faire jouir paisiblement le preneur pendant la durée du bail » In English, the landlord must keep the dwelling fit for living in and guarantee quiet enjoyment, with no need for any special clause in the lease. The decision is published here: Cass. 3e civ., 23 May 2019, no. 18-10.034. A roof torn open by the storm, windows that no longer close, or repeated water ingress that makes rooms unusable therefore fall in principle on the landlord’s side of the line, subject only to force majeure as the statute and the courts define it.
A second judgment refines the picture in the landlord’s tenants’ favour. On 9 July 2020 the Third Civil Chamber recalled that article 6 obliges the lessor « d’assurer au locataire la jouissance paisible du logement et de le garantir des vices ou défauts de nature à y faire obstacle », meaning the landlord must guarantee the tenant against defects that obstruct peaceful enjoyment. Importantly, the Court added that carrying out major works does not automatically extinguish the tenant’s loss-of-enjoyment claim, and that the tenant’s own faults must be examined to decide whether they exonerate the landlord in whole or in part. The decision is here: Cass. 3e civ., 9 July 2020, no. 19-12.347. In practice, after a storm this means three things: the landlord cannot answer a leaking roof by pointing to works done two years ago, the tenant’s failure to ventilate, heat or report promptly will be weighed, and compensation for periods when the flat was partly unusable remains available even if repairs have since been completed.
For a non-resident landlord with a Paris or Île-de-France rental, the procedure has local specifics worth knowing. Have damage recorded quickly by a commissaire de justice (court officer, formerly huissier), whose report, called a constat, fixes the facts with a date before memories fade and repairs begin. Tenants in Paris can obtain free general guidance from the ADIL of Paris, and landlord-tenant disputes go to the tribunal judiciaire de Paris (Paris judicial court), with conciliation available first. Do not change how rent is paid on your own initiative before a judge has ruled; ask the court or agree the arrangement in writing with the other side. And remember that the tenant owes reciprocal duties: everyday upkeep stays with the occupier, and a tenant who leaves storm damage unreported for weeks gives the landlord and the insurer arguments they would not otherwise have. Foreign landlords who want this correspondence handled in English can contact the practice presented on our Paris real estate law page, but any competent local manager can send the essential letters if instructed in time.
B. Co-ownership emergencies and damage arriving from next door
Many foreign owners hold flats in copropriété, where the roof, the façade, the stairwell and the pipes belong to everyone and the storm does not wait for the next general meeting. French law gives the syndic (managing agent) emergency powers precisely for this situation. Under article 18 of the Act of 10 July 1965, the syndic must maintain the building and, in urgent cases, order on its own initiative any works needed to safeguard it. The Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence restated the rule on 26 March 2025: « le syndic est notamment chargé de pourvoir à l’entretien de l’immeuble et, en cas d’urgence, de faire procéder de sa propre initiative à l’exécution de tous travaux nécessaires à sa sauvegarde. » In English, when the building is at risk, the syndic may act first and seek approval later. The decision is here: CA Aix-en-Provence, 26 March 2025, no. 22/06380.
But the same judgment shows the limits, and foreign co-owners should know them because they condition who ultimately pays. Article 37 of the Decree of 17 March 1967 requires the syndic that orders emergency works to inform the co-owners and convene a general meeting immediately; it may call for a provision to open the site, capped at one third of the estimated cost, without a prior vote, while any further funds require a meeting decision. In the Aix case, the works were genuinely urgent, yet the syndic had neither informed the co-owners nor convened the meeting promptly, and the invoices had not been notified with the meeting agenda as article 11 of the decree requires for a valid vote. The court therefore refused to let the recovery stand as presented. The lesson for an absent owner is practical: after the storm, write to the syndic demanding confirmation that the emergency procedure, information plus immediate meeting, is being followed, and keep that letter, because an irregular procedure can later be challenged while a regular one binds you to pay your share of genuinely necessary works.
Damage that travels across boundaries follows a different logic, the law of the keeper of the thing. Article 1242 of the Civil Code, which continues the former article 1384, paragraph 1, provides: « On est responsable non seulement du dommage que l’on cause par son propre fait, mais encore de celui qui est causé par le fait des personnes dont on doit répondre, ou des choses que l’on a sous sa garde. » The article in force is here: article 1242 of the Civil Code. In English, the person who has custody of a thing, a tree, a fence, roof equipment, scaffolding, answers for the damage it causes, unless a genuine case of force majeure is established. And French courts set that bar high for storms. In a judgment of 8 June 2023 concerning damage caused during Storm Zeus in March 2017, the Court of Appeal of Paris confirmed the keepers’ full liability: the storm had been announced by the weather services, it had not significantly exceeded in violence the storms that strike the region at least yearly, and at the place and time of the damage the wind was far below the recorded peaks. The court concluded: « cet évènement ne répond nullement aux conditions d’imprévisibilité ni même d’irrésistibilité requises au titre de la force majeure. » In English, an announced storm of ordinary regional intensity meets neither the unpredictability nor the irresistibility test for force majeure. The decision is here: CA Paris, 8 June 2023, no. 20/12056.
Two consequences matter to foreign owners on both sides of the fence. If your tree crushes the neighbour’s wall or your unsecured equipment smashes their windows during Storm Austen, expect to answer for it unless the event was truly extraordinary at your exact location, and gather local wind readings rather than national headlines, because courts compare the wind where the damage occurred with what the region normally endures. Conversely, if the neighbour’s chimney lands in your courtyard, the keeper’s liability works for you, and your claim runs against the neighbour and their insurer. A related provision covers buildings themselves: article 1244 of the Civil Code makes the owner of a building liable for damage caused by its ruin where the ruin results from defective maintenance or a construction defect: « Le propriétaire d’un bâtiment est responsable du dommage causé par sa ruine, lorsqu’elle est arrivée par une suite du défaut d’entretien ou par le vice de sa construction. » The article in force is here: article 1244 of the Civil Code. Poorly maintained chimneys, gutters and roof tiles are the classic storm cases, and a maintenance file showing recent inspections is the owner’s best defence.
Conclusion
Storm Austen will cross north-western France on the night of 22 to 23 October 2026, and the legal consequences will be settled in the weeks that follow. The foreign owner who comes out best is the one who treats the storm as an administrative file from day one: mandate someone local before the wind rises, notify the insurer in a traceable form within the contractual period while relying on the five-working-day legal floor, photograph before clearing, keep every invoice, and sign nothing final while damage is still appearing. Then classify each loss correctly, ordinary storm cover or catastrophe naturelle order, allocate each repair to the right person, landlord or tenant under article 6 of the 1989 Act, syndic acting urgently but regularly under the 1965 Act, or neighbouring keeper under article 1242, and use the Paris tools where the property sits there, the constat of a commissaire de justice, the ADIL, and the tribunal judiciaire. Storms are inevitable on the French coast; paying for someone else’s share of them is not.