Risk experts say the violence which has devastated parts of France is likely to continue as the country’s government struggles to quell ongoing civil unrest.

Experts added the insurance coverage for the riots is opaque and there is a great deal of uncertainty as to who will be required to pay the bill.

Jess Middleton, Senior Europe Analyst at risk intelligence company Verisk Maplecroft explained: “The reckoning from France’s worst bout of violence in years is set to continue. Authorities are scrambling not only to restore order through targeted curfews in major cities, but also to reassure markets, outside observers and the wider general public that the government remains in control of the situation in the country.

“The scale of the damage suggests this weekend’s riots could ultimately prove more costly than the unrest that followed the death of Nahel Merzouk in 2023. Estimates suggest that more than 3,000 shops were damaged or looted over the weekend, compared with around 2,500 properties damaged during the 2023 riots, which generated roughly EUR 1 billion in insured losses. While it will take time for claims to be fully assessed, this weekend’s unrest is shaping up as one of France’s most significant ever SRCC events.”

The political fallout has already been severe, with French Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez offering his resignation and the government facing scrutiny over how security forces were caught on the back foot.

“Further violence is not inevitable, but protests linked to the underlying grievances, including cost-of-living pressures and discontent over public services and education, are likely to persist, putting continued pressure on the government to demonstrate that it can maintain order,” Middleton continued. “Beyond the immediate security challenge, the next major hurdle for the government is the passage of the 2027 budget. Budget disputes helped bring down two previous prime ministers, and securing parliamentary support for cost-saving measures at a time of elevated social discontent may prove contentious. That said, the government may get some assistance this time around, as opposition parties in the fractured National Assembly will likely want to look like responsible players ahead of next year’s presidential and legislative elections.

“While conditions remain particularly volatile in France, many of the underlying pressures are visible elsewhere in Europe: strained public finances, stubborn inflation, and politically constrained governments with limited room to respond. Protests in Italy, Belgium and Portugal over the weekend highlight the extent to which economic and fiscal pressures are feeding into social mobilisation across the continent more broadly. Significant strike activity is planned in Portugal and Spain in November.”

Nicolas Aubert, CEO, Howden France, said events in France are a warning to all that civil disturbance remains a real risk.

“The insurance industry has responded swiftly to the unrest, introducing measures to accelerate claims payments and provide immediate financial support to affected businesses and communities,” he explained. “However, these events also highlight the challenges of insuring civil unrest, with higher deductibles, reduced limits and coverage restrictions leaving some policyholders exposed to significant losses.”

“France is now preparing to introduce a new mandatory riot insurance scheme, known as the garantie émeutes, which is scheduled to take effect on 1 January 2027, although implementation could be delayed until after the presidential elections. The framework would require riot cover to be included in relevant property insurance policies, supported by a state-backed risk-sharing mechanism to help insurers manage large-scale losses. This is an important step towards maintaining insurance capacity, but the real test will be whether it enables insurers to provide sustainable cover that offers businesses and local authorities meaningful financial protection.”

Emily Powell, Associate in law firm HCR’s Insurance, Risk & Regulatory Team: ““This month’s losses will be dealt with under policies as they stand today, not the new regime. Riot coverage varies between insurers and therefore the outcome will depend on the wording of each policy, and wordings can vary considerably.

“Some policies exclude riot outright, often as part of a wider political risks exclusion that also covers events such as war, invasion, revolution, and rebellion. A policyholder with that wording is unlikely to recover under its property cover at all. Other policies include riot as an insured event, but with carve-outs. Typical exclusions are damage resulting from cessation of work, damage caused by confiscation, destruction, or requisition by order of the government or a public authority, and damage to unoccupied buildings. That last point may be significant for vacant or closed premises.

“Even where riot is covered, claims conditions should be met. Policies commonly require the insured to tell the police immediately, or as soon as reasonably possible, where damage is caused by riot or civil commotion. Some wordings also shorten the period for providing information to the insurer, for example 7 days for riot damage compared with 30 days for other losses. Missing these shorter deadlines could put coverage at risk, depending on how the condition is framed.

“For insurers, the gap means they will be left with the bill for this month’s losses. They cannot rely on the Caisse Centrale de Réassurance (“CRR”) fund, which, once in force, will indemnify insurers for at least 90% of the riot losses ceded to it. The gap also brings a short-term risk of disputes and insurers should expect policyholders to argue, even if weakly, that the direction of the new law should shape how ambiguous current wordings are read.

She continued: “Many multinational property programmes placed in London use local admitted policies in France, sitting under a master policy with difference-in-conditions and difference-in-limits cover. Once riot cover becomes compulsory in French property policies, the local policies will have to include it. Brokers will need to look at how the master policy responds because a mismatch between a compulsory local wording and the London master policy is exactly where coverage disputes will arise.

“France has a long history of recurring civil unrest and that frequency is why riot has become harder and more expensive to insure in the French market, and why the state has stepped in. The state-backed fund is unlikely to remove the need for London cover, but it will change what is bought there, and by whom.”