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 M\u00e9t\u00e9o-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?<\/p>\n
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<\/em> (natural disaster) procedure, allocates repair duties between landlords and tenants, covers emergency works in copropri\u00e9t\u00e9<\/a><\/em> (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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n French law fixes a floor under the claim deadline that no policy can go below. Article L. 113-2, 4\u00b0, 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<\/a>. The statute fixes the floor in these terms: \u00ab Ce d\u00e9lai ne peut \u00eatre inf\u00e9rieur \u00e0 cinq jours ouvr\u00e9s. \u00bb 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.<\/p>\n 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\u00b0, and L. 111-2 of the Insurance Code. The official decision is published here: Cass. 2e civ., 21 January 2021, no. 19-13.347<\/a>. The Court put it this way: \u00ab Il s’en d\u00e9duit que l’assureur ne peut opposer \u00e0 l’assur\u00e9 une d\u00e9ch\u00e9ance pour d\u00e9claration tardive lorsque le contrat applicable ne comporte pas de clause l’\u00e9dictant ou lorsque la clause la pr\u00e9voyant n’est pas conforme \u00e0 ces dispositions, qui n’autorisent pas d’autres modifications conventionnelles que la prorogation du d\u00e9lai de d\u00e9claration de sinistre. \u00bb In other words, no clause, or a clause below the legal floor, means no forfeiture for late notification, period.<\/p>\n 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<\/a>): \u00ab Lorsqu’elle est pr\u00e9vue par une clause du contrat, la d\u00e9ch\u00e9ance pour d\u00e9claration tardive au regard des d\u00e9lais pr\u00e9vus au 3\u00b0 et au 4\u00b0 ci-dessus ne peut \u00eatre oppos\u00e9e \u00e0 l’assur\u00e9 que si l’assureur \u00e9tablit que le retard dans la d\u00e9claration lui a caus\u00e9 un pr\u00e9judice. \u00bb It adds a second shield, in the same article: \u00ab Elle ne peut \u00e9galement \u00eatre oppos\u00e9e dans tous les cas o\u00f9 le retard est d\u00fb \u00e0 un cas fortuit ou de force majeure. \u00bb 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<\/a>. The Court recalled the rule in one sentence: \u00ab Selon ce texte, la d\u00e9ch\u00e9ance pour d\u00e9claration tardive d’un sinistre ne peut \u00eatre oppos\u00e9e \u00e0 l’assur\u00e9 que si l’assureur \u00e9tablit que ce retard lui a caus\u00e9 un pr\u00e9judice. \u00bb In English: late notification alone is never enough; the insurer must prove what the delay cost it.<\/p>\n 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<\/em> (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<\/em> (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<\/a>, but whoever assists you, the paper trail is what wins claims.<\/p>\n 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<\/em> (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 temp\u00eate<\/em> (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.<\/p>\n The second track is the statutory catastrophe naturelle<\/em> 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: \u00ab L’\u00e9tat de catastrophe naturelle est constat\u00e9 par arr\u00eat\u00e9 interminist\u00e9riel qui d\u00e9termine les zones et les p\u00e9riodes o\u00f9 s’est situ\u00e9e la catastrophe ainsi que la nature des dommages r\u00e9sultant de celle-ci couverts par la garantie vis\u00e9e au premier alin\u00e9a du pr\u00e9sent article. \u00bb The article in force is here: article L. 125-1 of the Insurance Code<\/a>. 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n 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<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n 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’assur\u00e9<\/em> (policyholder’s adjuster), and the two experts then hold a joint inspection, called expertise contradictoire<\/em> (adversarial inspection). Never sign a final settlement, a quittance<\/em> (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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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: \u00ab Attendu que le bailleur est oblig\u00e9, par la nature du contrat et sans qu’il soit besoin d’aucune stipulation particuli\u00e8re, d’entretenir la chose lou\u00e9e en \u00e9tat de servir \u00e0 l’usage pour lequel elle a \u00e9t\u00e9 lou\u00e9e, et d’en faire jouir paisiblement le preneur pendant la dur\u00e9e du bail \u00bb 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>. 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u00ab d’assurer au locataire la jouissance paisible du logement et de le garantir des vices ou d\u00e9fauts de nature \u00e0 y faire obstacle \u00bb, 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<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n For a non-resident landlord with a Paris or \u00cele-de-France rental, the procedure has local specifics worth knowing. Have damage recorded quickly by a commissaire de justice<\/em> (court officer, formerly huissier<\/em>), whose report, called a constat<\/em>, 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<\/em> (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<\/a>, but any competent local manager can send the essential letters if instructed in time.<\/p>\n Many foreign owners hold flats in copropri\u00e9t\u00e9<\/em>, where the roof, the fa\u00e7ade, the stairwell and the pipes belong to everyone and the storm does not wait for the next general meeting. French law gives the syndic<\/em> (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: \u00ab le syndic est notamment charg\u00e9 de pourvoir \u00e0 l’entretien de l’immeuble et, en cas d’urgence, de faire proc\u00e9der de sa propre initiative \u00e0 l’ex\u00e9cution de tous travaux n\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 sa sauvegarde. \u00bb 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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: \u00ab On est responsable non seulement du dommage que l’on cause par son propre fait, mais encore de celui qui est caus\u00e9 par le fait des personnes dont on doit r\u00e9pondre, ou des choses que l’on a sous sa garde. \u00bb The article in force is here: article 1242 of the Civil Code<\/a>. 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: \u00ab cet \u00e9v\u00e8nement ne r\u00e9pond nullement aux conditions d’impr\u00e9visibilit\u00e9 ni m\u00eame d’irr\u00e9sistibilit\u00e9 requises au titre de la force majeure. \u00bb 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<\/a>.<\/p>\nI. Secure the insurance position in the first days<\/h2>\n
A. Declare the loss immediately and build the paper trail<\/h3>\n
B. Storm cover versus catastrophe naturelle<\/em>: ask the insurer the right question<\/h3>\n
II. Allocate the repairs: who fixes, who pays, who decides<\/h2>\n
A. The property is rented out: landlord duties, tenant conduct and the Paris path<\/h3>\n
B. Co-ownership emergencies and damage arriving from next door<\/h3>\n