Claims Made Clause and Sunset Clause: The Court of Cassation with Order No. 15447/2025 Clarifies Contractual Validity

The world of insurance, particularly civil liability, is constantly under judicial scrutiny. "Claims made" clauses, which define the timing of coverage, are among the most debated elements. Order No. 15447, issued by the Court of Cassation on June 10, 2025 (President T. G., Rapporteur G. M.), offers a fundamental clarification on the validity of such contracts, especially when the so-called "sunset clause" is absent.

The ruling, originating from the litigation between A. G. and G., quashed and decided on the merits a judgment by the Court of Appeal of Ancona dated June 13, 2022. The central issue is the compatibility of claims made clauses with the requirement of the contract's concrete cause, a crucial topic for professionals and insured parties.

Claims Made Clauses: Types and Function

To understand the Order, it is useful to distinguish between the types of "claims made" clauses. Unlike "loss occurrence" policies, which cover events that occurred during the policy's validity, claims made clauses focus on the date of the claim for compensation.

• Pure claims made: Covers only if both the damaging event and the claim occur during the policy's term.
• Impure (or retroactive) claims made: Extends coverage to claims made during the policy, even if the wrongful act occurred before the contract was signed. The Court of Cassation has ruled on this variant.

Order No. 15447/2025 focuses on impure claims made, stating that its validity is not automatically compromised by the absence of a "sunset clause."

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation: The Point on Concrete Cause

The key principle enunciated by the Supreme Court is as follows:

In the context of civil liability insurance, in the presence of an impure claims made clause – which extends coverage to the insured's conduct prior to the contract's stipulation date, provided that claims for compensation are made during the policy's term – the lack of a so-called sunset clause – which guarantees the insured even for claims received for a period after the contract's expiry – does not in itself render the contract void for lack of concrete cause.

This ruling is decisive: the mere absence of a "sunset clause" – which would extend coverage for future claims related to events that occurred during the policy period – does not automatically invalidate the insurance contract for "lack of concrete cause." The concrete cause, referred to in Articles 1322 and 1419 of the Civil Code, is the individual economic purpose that the parties intend to achieve. The Court of Cassation, in line with previous orientations (see No. 6490 of 2024), highlights that validity must be assessed within the overall context of the contract, considering the balance of interests and the protectability of the agreed arrangement.

The Sunset Clause: Post-Expiry Protection

The "sunset clause" is a provision that extends insurance coverage for claims presented after the policy's expiry, provided they relate to wrongful acts that occurred during the contract's validity. Its function is clear: to protect the insured from claims that may arise even some time after the policy has ceased.

While recalling that Law No. 24/2017 (Gelli-Bianco Law) mandates the "sunset clause" for healthcare policies (Art. 11), Order No. 15447/2025 clarifies that its absence in other sectors does not lead to automatic nullity. The parties, exercising contractual autonomy (Art. 1322 c.c.), may legitimately choose not to include it, provided the contract maintains its essential insurance function and is not devoid of economic significance.

Conclusions: Balance and Contractual Transparency

Order No. 15447/2025 of the Court of Cassation provides important interpretative guidance. The validity of claims made clauses is not rigidly tied to the presence of the sunset clause but requires careful assessment of the concrete cause and the balancing of contractual interests. It is not a matter of automatic nullity, but rather of seeking a "fair balance" between the parties.

For the insured, it is crucial to carefully read the policy conditions and seek qualified legal advice to ensure that the coverage is adequate for their needs. For companies, the ruling reiterates the importance of transparency and contractual clarity, fundamental elements for a relationship of trust and for preventing future disputes. In summary, claims made clauses remain valid instruments, provided they are included in a framework that guarantees the effective protection of the insured risk.