The admission of a non-judicial expert opinion supported by accompanying documents not provided by the expert himself
Published on :
06/05/2026
06
May
May
05
2026
An insurer, having been subrogated to the rights of its insured after paying compensation, filed a liability suit against a supplier and the supplier’s insurer following the delivery of non-compliant food ingredients.
The products delivered, which were marketed as containing beef, posed a health risk due to the presence of horse meat. In accordance with the precautionary principle, all affected batches were recalled from the market and subsequently destroyed by health authorities.
To assess the damages incurred, a non-judicial expert report was prepared at the insurer’s request. This report estimated the losses at more than 7 million euros, based in particular on attached accounting documents, invoices, purchase orders, and credit notes.
The supplier’s insurer contested the probative value of this report, arguing that a non-adversarial appraisal could not, on its own, serve as the basis for the judge’s decision.
The Court of Appeal granted the claim for compensation. It held that the expert report, although prepared at the request of only one party, had sufficient probative value since it was corroborated by objective evidence. Indeed, the attached documents (particularly accounting and commercial records) were not the work of the expert but rather pre-existing evidence that allowed for verification of his conclusions. The Court therefore concluded that it could rely on this report to assess the amount of damages.
The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal and upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision. It stated that a judge may base his or her assessment on a non-judicial expert report prepared at the request of a party, provided that its content is corroborated by evidence that is not the work of the expert, even if such evidence is attached to the report.
In this case, the trial judges had correctly found that the attached documents originated from the victim’s accounting records and business operations, and not from the expert himself. These elements therefore constituted independent evidence confirming the expert’s conclusions.
1 avril 2026, Cour de Cassation, Pourvoi n°24-17.785
History
-
Do remedial works interrupt the ten-year limitation period?
Published on : 22/05/2026 22 May May 05 2026Actualités
A care home (EPHAD) had a residential block built, which was accepted in 2008... -
The admission of a non-judicial expert opinion supported by accompanying documents not provided by the expert himself
Published on : 06/05/2026 06 May May 05 2026Actualités
An insurer, having been subrogated to the rights of its insured after paying...
-
War does not always make execution impossible. Sometimes, it simply makes it ruinous
Published on : 05/05/2026 05 May May 05 2026Actualités
War does not always make execution impossible. Sometimes, it simply makes... -
Ten-year warranty and photovoltaic panels: exclusion of equipment used exclusively for professional purposes in accordance with Article 1792-7 of the French Civil Code
Published on : 08/04/2026 08 April Apr 04 2026Actualités
The owner of agricultural buildings commissioned a contractor to install a so... -
Warranty against hidden defects: negotiations do not interrupt or suspend the two-year limitation period!
Published on : 25/03/2026 25 March Mar 03 2026Actualités
Homes buyers had a house built and purchased roof tiles which turned out to b... -
War breaks down borders – but rarely contracts
Published on : 18/03/2026 18 March Mar 03 2026Actualités
War breaks down borders. Rarely does it break down contracts. Tension...