Insurance & Reinsurance 2026 Comparisons

The main sources of insurance and reinsurance law in Italy are the Code of Private Insurance (Codice delle Assicurazioni Private – CAP), issued with Legislative Decree No 209 of 7 September 2005 and the Italian Civil Code (Articles 1882–1932).

The Civil Code defines the general concepts and principles of civil law that govern the insurance and reinsurance activity, while the CAP further outlines the regulatory framework for insurance and reinsurance business and the supervision of insurance and reinsurance companies.

Italian insurance law has been further shaped by the relevant directives of the European Parliament and of the Council, in particular by the Insurance Distribution Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/97 – IDD) and the Directive on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Directive 2009/138/EC – Solvency II).

On secondary level, the provisions of the Civil Code and the CAP are integrated and detailed by the regulations and provisions of the Insurance Supervisory Authority (IVASS).

In its rulings, the Italian Supreme Court establishes general principles and provides interpretations of the legal provisions. Even though these rulings have no direct binding effects on the lower courts, the latter tend to follow the latest interpretations provided by the Supreme Court to avoid their rulings being appealed against on the basis of the established ruling of the Supreme Court.

Common law and precedent are not relevant in the Italian jurisdiction.

The regulatory framework for insurance and reinsurance activity in the Italian market is provided for by the Civil Code and the Code of Private Insurance.

In addition to the above main sources regulating insurance and reinsurance business in Italy, there are provisions and regulations issued by the supervisory bodies within their respective areas of competence as well as laws and decrees that regulate certain operational aspects of types of insurance or aspects of the insurance business (for example, Interministerial Decree No 18 of 30 January 2025 on the implementation and operational procedures for catastrophic risk insurance schemes).

The regulatory bodies competent for the surveillance of the insurance and reinsurance activity in Italy are as follows.

• IVASS (Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni – Insurance Supervisory Authority) exercises supervisory functions over insurance and reinsurance companies, insurance groups, financial conglomerates including insurance and reinsurance undertakings, and insurance and reinsurance intermediaries. IVASS is further competent for the granting of the authorisation to carry out insurance and reinsurance activities on the Italian market and holds the registers of authorised insurance and reinsurance undertakings and insurance intermediaries.
• CONSOB (Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa – National Commission for Companies and the Stock Exchange) oversees financial aspects of insurance-based investment products (unit-linked and index-linked policies), in particular the transparency of information provided and the fairness of product distribution. The supervision is carried out in collaboration with IVASS which remains competent for the insurance-related aspects of the policies. In recent years, the supervisory powers have been concentrated more and more with IVASS.
• COVIP (Commissione di Vigilanza sui Fondi Pensione – Pension Fund Supervisory Commission) exercises the supervision over supplementary pension schemes, including individual insurance-based pension plans (PIP) and pan-European personal pension products (PEPP), pursuing transparency and fairness of conduct, a sound and prudent management, and the solidity of the pension products.

The collaboration between the national supervisory authorities is regulated by a memorandum of understanding entered into by the authorities.

For cross-border activities at pan-European level, Italian supervisory authorities rely on the principle of “home country control” and co-operation between authorities based on the guidelines for the co-operation between authorities provided by the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA). However, in some areas, such as market conduct and the compliance with rules of general interest, IVASS exercises its supervisory activity also on European undertakings operating on the Italian market under the principles of freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment.

The requirements and limitations for undertakings entitled to write insurance and reinsurance business in Italy are established in the Code of Private Insurance, Title II “Access to the insurance business” and Title V “Access to the reinsurance business”.

Such requirements include:

• organisation in the form of a joint-stock limited company, a co-operative society or a mutual insurance company whose quotas are represented by shares, as well as in the form of a European company and a European co-operative society (SCE);
• establishment of the general and administrative management in the territory of the Republic of Italy;
• holding of own funds covering the absolute minimum of the Minimum Capital Requirement;
• proof that the undertaking will be able to hold the eligible “own funds” necessary to cover the Solvency Capital Requirement;
• filing of a programme of planned business activities;
• holders of qualifying holdings meeting the integrity requirements set up by the CAP; and
• implementing a system of corporate governance that respects the minimum requirements established by the CAP.

The pursuit of insurance activities in the life and non-life sectors, as classified under the Private Insurance Code, is reserved by insurance companies that are registered in the register of insurance companies and reinsurance companies and its annexes held by IVASS. Insurance and reinsurance companies having their registered office in Italy or a third country (ie, not one of the EU member states) have to be authorised by IVASS; whereas undertakings from another member state may operate in the Italian market on the basis of the principles of freedom to provide services (FOS) and freedom of establishment (FOE).

On the secondary level, the requirements for being entitled to write insurance and reinsurance business in Italy are regulated by ISVAP Regulation No 10/2008 (issued by IVASS).

The writing of insurance and reinsurance business by an undertaking from an EU member state, acting in Italy under the principles of freedom to provide services or the freedom of establishment, are regulated under Articles 23 to 27 of the CAP (for further details, refer to 3. Overseas Firms Doing Business in the Jurisdiction).

With few limited exceptions, an insurance undertaking may be active either in the life or non-life insurance sector.

To obtain the authorisation to operate in Italy, insurance and reinsurance undertakings have to cover the Minimum Capital Requirement and the Solvency Capital Requirement.

The CAP does not establish special requirements for the writing of consumer insurance, SME insurance or corporate insurance. Special protection for consumer interests is implemented on the level of the insurance contract.

The Italian legislation provides for a specific tax on insurance premiums and relevant accessories (TIP) which is governed by Law No 1216 of 1961, which has undergone numerous amendments over time. The TIP is levied by the insurance company on premiums collected with respect to categories of insurance policies identified by the law and based on rates that vary from 2.5% to 21.25% depending on the nature of the risk insured. Insurance companies are subject to specific requirements regarding annual reporting and payment of the TIP levied.

The law provides for specific exemptions inspired by social or systematic considerations, excluding from the scope of TIP, for example, life insurance policies, including those of a financial nature, as well as certain forms of compulsory insurance.

TIP applies only in the case that the territoriality requirement is satisfied in accordance with the specific criteria set out by the law.

Whilst the taxable person of TIP is generally the insurance company (either Italian or non-Italian operating under the freedom to provide services or with establishment in Italy), the latter is entitled to exercise a right of recourse against the policyholder who therefore bears the economic burden of the tax.

TIP operates as an alternative to other indirect taxes, including registration tax on insurance contracts and relevant receipts, stamp duties and VAT. Insurance premiums are VAT exempt, which results in a limitation to the deductibility of VAT incurred on acquisition of goods or services by insurance companies.

Access to the Italian insurance market is subject to the granting of an authorisation by IVASS (unlicensed activities are strictly prohibited). However, Italian law differentiates the applicable authorisation procedures depending on whether the insurance undertaking is established in a member state of the EU or in a third (non-EU) country.

EU insurance undertakings may operate in Italy under the freedom of establishment (FOE) or the freedom to provide services (FOS), in accordance with the notification procedures laid down by the Solvency II framework. Under this regime, an undertaking authorised in its home member state is entitled to carry out insurance business in Italy without obtaining a separate Italian licence, provided that it has duly notified its home-country supervisory authority of its intention to establish a branch in Italy or to operate cross-border on a freedom-to-provide-services basis. The procedure is based on a supervisory notification mechanism, pursuant to which the home supervisory authority transmits the relevant information concerning the insurance undertaking and its programme of activity in Italy to IVASS.

Non-EU undertakings are subject to a distinct and more stringent authorisation regime. Non-EU insurers intending to carry out insurance business in Italy – whether in the life or non-life sectors – are required to establish a branch in Italy. Italian law does not permit third-country insurers to operate under the FOS regime, and unlicensed insurance activities are strictly prohibited.

Before commencing operations, a third-country insurer must obtain prior authorisation from IVASS to establish the Italian branch. Authorisation is granted exclusively for activities conducted in Italy and may cover either the life or non-life classes (dual authorisation, life and non-life, is permitted only where it is already authorised in the home jurisdiction and it may regard the combination of life insurance with non-life accident and health classes only).

The Italian branch must be managed by at least one legal representative – either a natural person or a legal entity – vested with powers to conduct the insurance business in Italy and meeting the necessary integrity, fairness, professional and competence requirements that the Italian law and regulations provide for members of the management bodies of Italian insurers.

The application for authorisation must be prepared in accordance with ISVAP Regulation No 10/2008. Key requirements include a comprehensive three-year programme of operations (including financial forecasts and organisational structure of the branch) and a capital endowment at least equal to the statutory minimum provided for the classes of business to be pursued (ranging from EUR1.5 million to EUR7.5 million) and to be deposited as collateral with the Cassa Depositi e Prestiti or the Bank of Italy.

In addition, the application must be accompanied by a set of statements issued by the competent supervisory authority of the insurer’s home state, confirming (i) compliance with applicable capital adequacy requirements, (ii) the adequacy of the undertaking’s or group’s administrative and accounting structures, and (iii) the undertaking’s commitment to maintain specific accounts and to keep all documents relating to the business conducted in Italy at the Italian branch. The application must also include a certificate from the home-state supervisory authority specifying the insurance classes for which the undertaking is authorised in its home jurisdiction and the activities or risks that are actually carried out, together with a declaration confirming the supervisory authority’s prior consent to the establishment of a branch in Italy.

Authorisation is granted if the legal requirements are met and it may be refused if the insurer’s home jurisdiction does not ensure reciprocity or equivalent treatment for Italian insurers seeking to establish branches there.

The authorisation process is generally completed within 90 days, subject to interruptions or requests for additional information by IVASS.

Post-Brexit, UK insurers no longer benefit from EU passporting rights. As a result, UK undertakings wishing to conduct insurance business in Italy must follow the same regime applicable to other third-country insurers, including the establishment and authorisation of an Italian branch.

Under the current Italian and EU regulatory framework, there is no explicit prohibition preventing an insurance undertaking from assigning the entirety of the risks it underwrites to a reinsurer (so-called fronting), nor is there a specific statutory regime governing such arrangements.

That said, fronting may fall within the definition of “risk-mitigation technique” under Solvency II and the Code of Private Insurance, which expressly define them as “techniques enabling an insurance or reinsurance undertaking to transfer a part or the whole of its risks to a third party”. Fronting may therefore fall within the scope of recognised risk-mitigation techniques, to the extent that it entails a (potentially total) transfer of the underwritten risks to a third party.

It is worth noting that the use of risk-mitigation techniques – and therefore the use of fronting – directly impacts the calculation of the Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR), since it is calibrated to capture all quantifiable risks to which the undertaking is exposed. Therefore, where risk-mitigation techniques are used, the SCR must adequately reflect any risks arising from their use (including the counterparty default risk associated with the reinsurance arrangement). In light of this prudential impact, the appropriateness of fronting structures should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and in close co-ordination with the supervisory authority, taking into consideration any risk arising from its use.

From a regulatory perspective, the execution of any extraordinary transaction involving an insurance undertaking – including acquisition of qualified shareholdings and a merger/demerger – is subject to prior authorisation by IVASS.

Acquisition of Qualified Shareholdings

Any person, whether natural or a legal entity, who intends (i) to acquire, directly or indirectly, the control or a qualifying holding in an insurance undertaking – ie, a holding representing 10% or more of the capital or voting rights, or otherwise allowing the exercise of significant influence over the management of the undertaking – or (ii) to increase an existing holding so that certain thresholds are crossed (20%, 30%, or 50% of the capital or voting rights), must be authorised by IVASS.

The purpose of the authorisation procedure is to allow the supervisory authority to assess whether the proposed acquisition ensures the sound and prudent management of the target undertaking, in accordance with Solvency II framework and relevant national implementing provisions. The proposed acquirer is required to submit a formal notification to IVASS, including a comprehensive set of documents and detailed information, in order to enable the Supervisory Authority to assess whether the proposed acquisition complies with the criteria laid down under Solvency II and the CAP, including:

• the reputation of the proposed acquirer;
• the suitability, reputation and professional experience of the persons who, following the acquisition, will be responsible for the administration, management and control of the undertaking;
• the financial soundness of the proposed acquirer;
• the ability of the target undertaking, after the acquisition, to comply on an ongoing basis with prudential and regulatory requirements;
• the suitability of the group structure of the proposed acquirer to ensure the effective exercise of supervisory powers;
• the impact of the acquisition on the protection of policyholders; and
• the absence of reasonable grounds to suspect that the acquisition is connected with money laundering or terrorist financing activities.

The authority must complete its assessment within 60 working days, unless IVASS suspends the term to request additional information or clarifications from the applicants. The acquisition may not be completed until the supervisory authority has issued its approval.

Mergers and Demergers

As to mergers/demergers, the purpose of the authorisation procedure is to enable the supervisory authority to verify, prior to the execution of the transaction, that (i) it is compatible with the sound and prudent management of the undertakings involved; (ii) in the case of mergers by incorporation or total demergers, the beneficiary undertaking has, post-transaction, sufficient assets to cover technical provisions and the required solvency margin; and (iii) where new undertakings are created, they meet the conditions for authorisation to carry out the relevant insurance activities, including adequate coverage of technical provisions and the required solvency margin.

To allow the above assessment, the applicant undertaking must submit an application accompanied by a broad set of documents and information, including the merger plan, the report of the administrative body explaining the objectives, benefits and costs of the transaction, an integration plan, and an independent expert’s sworn appraisal certifying the adequacy of the net assets of the incorporating or resulting company to IVASS.

The authorisation process must be completed within 120 days, unless IVASS suspends the term to request additional information or clarifications from the applicants or, where necessary, information, documents or opinions from national or – in the case of cross-border mergers – foreign authorities.

Italian M&A Market Perspective

From a market perspective, M&A activity in the Italian insurance market remains significant, with 2025 recording a substantial volume of IVASS-authorised transactions, including various intragroup mergers and demergers aimed at simplifying corporate structures and strengthening capital efficiency. On the acquisitions side, IVASS has issued several authorisations for acquisitions, mostly involving credit institutions, international insurance groups and investment entities seeking to consolidate or expand their presence in the Italian market, particularly in the bancassurance sector. A key driver of this trend has been the broader consolidation process within the banking sector (the so-called risiko bancario), which has indirectly affected the shareholding structure of insurers owned or controlled by credit institutions or forming part of banking groups.

The distribution of insurance and reinsurance products in Italy is governed by the CAP and supplementing regulations issued by IVASS, in particular IVASS Regulation No 40/2018.

A necessary requirement to take up distribution in Italy is the registration in the Single Register of Intermediaries (RUI) or – in case of distributors from other EU member states that participate in the Italian market under the principle of freedom to provide services (FOS) or freedom of establishment (FOE) – its Annex.

Italian law recognises six types of intermediaries, and the RUI provides a section for each type of intermediary.

• Insurance agents (Section A) – acting as intermediaries on behalf of one or more insurance or reinsurance companies.
• Insurance or reinsurance brokers (Section B) – acting as intermediaries on behalf of the client and without powers of representation of insurance or reinsurance companies.
• Direct producers (Section C) who, even on a subsidiary basis to their main activity, carry out insurance intermediation in the life, accident and health branches, on behalf of and under the full responsibility of an insurance undertaking and who operate without any obligation as to working hours or results exclusively for that undertaking.
• Banks, financial intermediaries, payment institutions, SIMs and Poste Italiane spa – Bancoposta Services Division (Section D).
• Persons engaged in distribution activities outside the premises of the intermediary, registered in Sections A, B, D or F, for whom they work, insurance intermediaries acting on an ancillary basis on behalf of another intermediary, as well as persons employed by intermediaries registered in Section E who work outside the latter’s premises (Section E).
• Ancillary insurance intermediaries (Section F) – operating on behalf of one or more insurance companies.

IVASS Regulation No 40/2018 establishes the requirements and conditions for the registration with the single Sections of the RUI.

All distributors are obliged to take out civil liability insurance in relation to the distribution activity.

Insurance contracts are based on the risk assessment carried out by the insurer on the basis of the information disclosed by the insured. Therefore, a correct and truthful disclosure of all relevant circumstances by the insured is of upmost importance for the determination of insured risk, the calculation of the premium and the overall determination of the terms of coverage.

The insured has a duty to provide all relevant information about the risk. This means declaring any circumstance that may affect the likelihood of the insured event occurring or the severity of its consequences. This obligation is governed by Article 1892 et seq of the Italian Civil Code.

If the risk changes after the contract has been concluded, the insured must promptly inform the insurer, who has the right to withdraw from the insurance contract within two months from the day on which the notification was made.

On the other hand, the insurer is held to take the initiative to obtain all information required to assess the risk, for example through the use of pre-contractual questionnaires.

The Italian legislator has established a right of oncological oblivion in favour of persons that have been afflicted by cancer and have been cured without remission for a determined period. With regard to oncological conditions, the insurer is held to inform the prospect about his/her rights and to omit queries that aim at the obtainment of information the insured is not held to give.

If the policyholder fails – with malicious intent or gross negligence – to comply with his/her obligation to provide accurate and complete information in a way that the insurer would not have given its consent to the conclusion of the insurance contract or would not have given it under the same conditions had the insurer known the true state of affairs, such are grounds for the annulment of the insurance contract. The insurer loses its right to contest the insurance contract, if it does not inform the policyholder within three months from the day on which the insurer became aware of the inaccuracy of the declaration or the omission about its intention to void the insurance contract. The insurer is entitled to the premiums relating to the period for which the insurance contract has been in force and, in any case, to the premium agreed for the first year. If a claim occurs prior to the expiry of the three-month contestation period, the insurer is not required to pay the insurance benefit.

If the policyholder has acted without malicious intent or gross negligence, inaccurate statements or omissions, the insurance contract may not be annulled, but the insurer has the right to withdraw from the contract within three months from the day on which the insurer became aware of the inaccuracy of the statement or the omission.

If the insured event occurs before the insurer is aware of the inaccuracy of the statement or the omission, or before the insurer has declared its withdrawal from the insurance contract, the insured sum due shall be reduced in proportion to the difference between the agreed premium and the premium that would have been applied if the true state of affairs had been known to the insurer.

Whether the intermediary acts on behalf of the insured or the insurer depends on the type of intermediary involved. The broker, registered in Section B of the RUI (for further details, refer to 5.1 Distribution of Insurance and Reinsurance Products), acts on behalf of the customer and has no power of representation for insurance companies.

The obligations of the intermediaries towards their potential clients are regulated in the Code of Private Insurance and in IVASS Regulation No 40/2018 and differ based on the type of insurance contract and type of intermediation (direct or through means of remote communication).

The distributor has to observe the general rules of correct conduct established by the Code of Private Insurance and the IVASS regulations, in particular but not limited to IVASS Regulation No 40/2018. The distributor is held to act with honesty, professionalism, transparency and fairness, always in the best interests of the customer. The distributors must comply with current regulations and the instructions given by the insurance companies with which they collaborate. They are held to obtain all information necessary to adequately assess their insurance and social security needs from the potential client. They must provide clear and complete information on the insurance products they intermediate and must periodically update their professional knowledge through mandatory training programmes.

The requirements and features of insurance contracts are governed by the Civil Code, the Code of Private Insurance, the Consumer Code, IVASS Regulation No 41/2018 and the Guidelines issued by ANIA, the National Association of Insurance Undertakings.

According to Article 1882 of the Civil Code, an insurance contract is an agreement whereby the insurer, upon payment of a premium, undertakes to compensate the insured or to pay a sum upon the occurrence of a future and uncertain event. It is an aleatory contract, since the insurer’s performance depends on an uncertain event, and a reciprocal performance contract, because there is an exchange between the premium and the risk coverage.

The insurance contract must be in writing (Article 1888 of the Civil Code).

According to the Code of Private Insurance, the wording of the insurance contract must be clear and comprehensive. Clauses indicating forfeiture, nullity or limitations of guarantees, or containing costs payable by the policyholder or the insured party, have to be highlighted, in order to ensure transparency and protection for the policyholder.

The existence of the risk to be insured is an essential element of the insurance contract. Indeed, the insurance contract is null and void if the insured risk never existed or ceases to exist before the insurance contract has concluded.

The insurance contract has to contain at least the essential elements such as the parties, a description of the covered risk, the conditions under which coverage is granted, the premium, and the duration of the contract and – if not coinciding with the policyholder – the beneficiary of the insurance benefit.

If the insurer uses standardised insurance terms and conditions that have been unilaterally predetermined and have not been individually negotiated with the single policyholder, Italian law establishes provisions for the safeguarding of the policyholder. All unfair terms have to be expressly indicated and approved in writing by the policyholder.

The Civil Code expressly provides for the possibility to conclude an insurance contract on behalf and in the interest of a third party.

The third party does not have to be indicated nominally. However, a clear identification of the beneficiary, that has not been indicated nominally but as part of a category, has to be guaranteed.

Examples for this practice in the Italian insurance market are D&O (directors and officers) policies in which the insurance coverage is provided in favour of an administrator and/or corporate officers in charge at a certain point of time or policies taken out to guarantee loans. In the latter kind of insurance contract, the beneficiary of the contract is often the lending bank, in order to ensure repayment of the outstanding credit in the event of the debtor’s death or incapacity to make the loan payments.

Another example is a life insurance policy, in which the beneficiary usually is a third party, who may be designated not nominally but as part of a generic category, for example, the legal heirs of the policyholder or his/her spouse or children at the moment of the insured event.

If the insurer allows a generic, not nominal, indication of the beneficiary of a life insurance contract, it is held to expressly inform the policyholder that in case of a generic indication the insurer might have difficulty to individuate the beneficiary.

The Civil Code does not impose additional disclosure obligations on third parties. However, if a third party is aware that the policyholder’s statements or omissions about the risk are inaccurate, the insurer may seek to annul the insurance contract (see 6.2 Failure to Comply With Obligations of an Insurance Contract).

In insurance contracts concluded with consumers, the additional rules of the Consumer Code apply. However, there is a very high alignment between the provisions on insurance contracts of the Code of Private Insurance and the Consumer Protection Rules.

A special level of protection is provided if the insurance contract is unilaterally drafted by the insurer, for example, by offering standardised terms and conditions. In this case, the insurer is held to highlight so-called unfair conditions, which have to be indicated in a list and have to be expressly confirmed by the other party.

In reinsurance contracts, due to the professional characteristics of the parties involved, there are no special enhanced protections for either party to the contract.

In any case, the general principles of good faith, contractual transparency and fairness provided for in general by the Civil Code apply also to the execution of reinsurance contracts.

Italian law does not provide for any particular formalities and/or requirements regarding the formation of the reinsurance contract, therefore, the general rules on contracts and obligations apply.

ART Transactions fall within the definition of “risk-mitigation technique” pursuant to the Solvency II Directive and the CAP. ART transactions are recognised as instruments combining both insurance and financial components, characterised by the following distinctive features:

• they are structured on a tailor-made basis to meet the specific needs of the risk-taker;
• they provide multidimensional coverage, typically on a multi-year and/or multi-risk basis;
• they shift the focus from pure risk transfer to risk financing mechanisms;
• they allow risk to be assumed by entities other than traditional (re)insurance undertakings; and
• they incorporate financial instruments, such as derivatives.

More generally, ART arrangements enable the transfer of insurance risk to non-insurance entities, including investors and capital markets. In essence, ART transactions are characterised by the presence of an alternative counterparty and/or an alternative risk-transfer or risk-financing instrument.

Where such instruments meet the conditions set out in the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35 – including the relevant qualitative requirements, the effective transfer of risk, and the legal effectiveness and enforceability of the contractual arrangements in all relevant jurisdictions – the reinsurance treaties or arrangements entered into with reinsurers or SPVs may be recognised for the purposes of calculating the capital requirements.

From a supervisory standpoint, ART transactions may present structural complexity of the arrangements, the need to clearly demonstrate effective risk transfer (as opposed to mere risk financing), the valuation and modelling of embedded financial components, potential legal and operational risks arising from multi-party structures, and regulatory arbitrage. Where complex reinsurance structures are involved or where supervisory authorities are required to co-ordinate and co-operate in the assessment of arrangements with cross-border relevance, the EIOPA “Opinion on the use of risk-mitigation techniques” (July 2021) recommends that insurance undertakings engage in an early dialogue with their supervisory authorities.

As ART arrangements qualify as risk-mitigation techniques, insurance undertakings making use of such structures are required to disclose them to IVASS in the Solvency and Financial Condition Report (SFCR), providing a description of the purpose and main characteristics of the contract, the key risks covered, the applicable accounting treatment, and the economic, financial and balance-sheet effects on the ceding undertaking, including any relevance for compliance with prudential supervisory requirements.

The regulatory treatment of cross-border reinsurance and ART transactions follows a differentiated approach, depending on whether the risk is transferred to a traditional (re)insurance undertaking or to a special purpose vehicle (SPV).

Traditional reinsurance contracts are recognised for solvency purposes where the counterparty qualifies as an eligible reinsurer under the Solvency II framework. In particular, the reinsurer must be: (i) an insurance or reinsurance undertaking that complies with the Solvency Capital Requirement; (ii) an insurance or reinsurance undertaking established in a third country whose solvency regime is deemed equivalent or temporarily equivalent pursuant to Article 172 of Directive 2009/138/EC and which complies with the applicable third-country solvency requirements; or (iii) an insurance or reinsurance undertaking established in a non-equivalent third country, provided that its credit quality is assigned to credit quality Step 3 or better in accordance with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35. Where these conditions are met, reinsurance contracts are generally recognised for solvency purposes without further structural equivalence assessments.

Before an SPV established in an EU member state may assume risks from insurance or reinsurance undertakings, it must obtain prior authorisation from the competent supervisory authority in accordance with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/462. The relevant risk-mitigation technique is recognised for the purposes of calculating the Basic Solvency Capital Requirement only where the SPV meets the conditions set out in Solvency II.

Similarly, where the risk is transferred to an SPV regulated by a third-country supervisory authority, solvency recognition is granted only where the SPV satisfies requirements equivalent to those set out in Solvency II. In the absence of the required equivalence, ART arrangements are not recognised as risk mitigation techniques for solvency purposes and are instead treated as financial arrangements, without capital relief. Supervisory scrutiny in these cases focuses on effective risk transfer, contractual enforceability, governance and risk-management arrangements, and the prevention of regulatory arbitrage.

The general criteria of interpretation of contracts provided for in the Civil Code (Articles 1362–1371) also apply to insurance contracts.

According to the rulings of the Italian Supreme Court, the rule of “interpretation contra stipulatorem”, hence the interpretation of an unclear clause to the detriment of its author, usually the insurer, can be used in the interpretation of insurance contracts.

Furthermore, according to the Consumer Code, unclear clauses have to be interpreted in favour of the consumer.

According to IVASS Regulation No 41/2018, insurers must draft all insurance documents in “clear and concise language and style, so as to facilitate understanding of the information contained therein”. Unclear wordings are therefore interpreted to the detriment of the insurer who violated its obligation.

According to the Civil Code, when interpreting a contractual clause, the interpretation has to take into account not only the literal meaning of the words, but also the common intention of the parties. To this end, the legislator allows the overall behaviour of the parties, even after the conclusion of the contract, to be taken into account (Article 1362).

Therefore and on the basis of the established case law, extraneous elements may be considered to clarify the meaning of an unclear clause, such as:

• pre-contractual negotiations and correspondence exchanged prior to the conclusion of the contract;
• the circumstances in which the contract was concluded, which help to understand the economic context and the intentions of the parties; and
• the market practice and customs in the sector/similar contracts.

Italian insurance law does not establish special provisions regarding warranties in insurance contracts and does not provide for a special treatment of warranties. Therefore, the general rules regarding the provision of true and complete information by the insured (see 6.2 Failure to Comply With Obligations of an Insurance Contract) apply.

Conditions precedent are regulated by Article 1353 of the Civil Code.

According to said article, the parties may subject the effectiveness or the resolution of an insurance contract to a future and unsure event. The insurance contract has to be drafted in a clear, correct and transparent manner and the parties have to act in good faith.

A breach of a condition precedent generally gives rise to a right of compensation for damages if caused; however, each case must be assessed individually.

The Italian legal system does not provide for specialised courts for disputes between insured parties and insurers. Disputes that may arise concerning insurance contracts are, in principle, referred to the ordinary civil courts.

If the policyholder and/or insured party is a natural person, they may enjoy specific procedural advantages provided for by the Consumer Code such as jurisdiction of the court at the consumer’s place of residence.

Proceedings regarding reinsurance contracts fall in the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts and are governed by the rules of civil procedure. In practice, reinsurance contracts often include an arbitration clause that devolves the jurisdiction to settle disputes between insurers and reinsurers to an arbitration panel.

The limitation period for rights arising from insurance contracts is governed by Article 2952 of the Civil Code.

The insurer’s right to demand the payment of the premium expires one year after the due date of the individual instalment.

Other rights arising from insurance contracts expire after two years. The limitation period starts from the day on which the event on which the right is based occurred, which is normally the moment when the insured event occurred. However, case law has developed various guidelines that differ in terms of the moment from which the limitation period starts depending on the type of insurance contract (for example, loss occurrence or claims made) and the type of damage.

Rights arising from life insurance contracts are subject to a limitation period of ten years.

The limitation period may be interrupted, for example, by a written request to the insurer containing a demand to enforce the right.

In general, rights arising from the insurance contract can only be exercised by the policyholder/insured or, in the case of life insurance policies, by the beneficiary.

However, Italian law provides for some exceptions in which an injured party – a person not directly involved in the insurance relationship – can take direct action against the insurance company to claim insurance compensation under a policy taken out by the liable party.

For example, in motor vehicle liability insurance policies, the injured party can sue the insurance company of the vehicle that caused the accident directly for the compensation of damages. Also in medical liability cases, direct action against the insurer of the medical facilities and doctor is allowed.

Pursuant to the Code of Private Insurance, when the EU member state where the risk is located or of the obligation is the Italian Republic, Italian law and the jurisdiction of Italian courts apply to non-life and life insurance contracts. However, the parties of an insurance contract are not precluded from choosing a law other than Italian law to govern the insurance or reinsurance contract or from selecting the jurisdiction of a foreign court.

Relations between the Italian state and third countries not belonging to the European Union are governed by Law No 218/1995, which governs Italian Private International Law. In relation to other member states, the Brussels I-bis Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and in particular the provisions on the jurisdiction for insurance disputes (Section III, Articles 10–16), apply.

The ordinary litigation process is divided into four stages:

• the introductory stage, which includes the notification of the writ of summons, determining the pendency of the dispute, the appearance and response brief of the defendant, and the appearance of the parties in the proceeding;
• the hearing stage, which consists of preliminary checks regarding the procedural requirements and issues that can be raised ex officio, the definition of the subject matter of the dispute and the preliminary requests and scheduling of the first hearing, in which, among other things, the parties must appear in person for the purposes of attempting conciliation;
• the preliminary investigation stage, where the evidence is gathered; and
• the decision phase, in which the judge pronounces the judgment that closes the proceeding and which, if not appealed, becomes final.

As to disputes considered non-complex, either because the facts of the case are not disputed or because the claim is based on documentary evidence, or the investigation is not complex, a simplified procedure applies.

Pursuant to Article 282 of the Code of Civil Procedure, judgments are – automatically and without the need for a specific request by the parties – provisionally enforceable. On the other hand, a party may request the suspension of the enforceability of the ruling along with the appeal against such ruling. The suspension will be granted if the appeal appears to be founded or if the enforcement of the judgment could cause serious and irreparable harm.

Pursuant to Article 64 of Law No 218/1995, judgments issued in a third (non-EU) country are recognised in Italy without the need for additional proceedings. However, this automatic recognition is subject to the fulfilment of certain essential requirements by the judgment issued.

Pursuant to Article 36 of the Brussels I-bis Regulation (EU Regulation No 1215/2012), a judgment issued in a member state is automatically recognised in the other EU countries and, pursuant to Article 39, judgments that are enforceable in the country of origin are also enforceable in other EU member states without the need for a further declaration of enforceability. However, Article 46 provides for the possibility to request the refusal of enforcement on the basis of the grounds referred to in Article 45.

Arbitration clauses that provide for the referral of disputes to arbitration, once included in the contract between the parties, are enforceable and binding, to the extent that if the parties bring a dispute before a court instead of an arbitrator, the court may declare that it lacks jurisdiction to decide the dispute due to the existence of an arbitration agreement (Articles 819 and 819-ter of the Code of Civil Procedure).

For the enforcement of an arbitration clause, it is essential that such clause is drafted in a precise manner and contains all the essential elements, such as:

• the express willingness of the parties to resolve disputes through arbitration;
• the scope of application;
• the number of arbitrators in the panel;
• the rules and the arbitration institution of reference;
• the place of arbitration;
• the language of arbitration; and
• the applicable law.

In the Italian legal system, there are various forms of arbitration and, therefore, arbitration awards. The most important distinction is between so-called formal arbitration, to which the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply, and so-called informal arbitration, which is governed by the parties.

The award issued following formal arbitration has the same effects as a judgment and therefore settles the dispute and is binding for the parties (Article 824-bis of the Code of Civil Procedure).

An award issued at the end of an informal arbitration proceeding has the same effect as a binding contract between the parties. Therefore, if the award is not executed, the parties may invoke remedies given by the civil law.

The Code of Civil Procedure further provides a specific procedure for the recognition of foreign awards, which is designed to ensure compliance with fundamental principles and applicable international rules. This procedure (Articles 839 and 840 of the Code of Civil Procedure) is based on the 1958 New York Convention. The ruling granting or denying the validity of the foreign award may be appealed before the court of appeal within 30 days of notification. The recognition or enforcement of the foreign award shall be refused by the court of appeal if, in the opposition proceedings, the party against whom the award is invoked proves the existence of one of the circumstances pursuant to Article 840 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Before taking legal action in insurance matters, the parties must attempt to settle the matter by using one of the following alternative dispute resolution methods: (i) mediation proceeding, (ii) assisted negotiation, or (iii) proceeding before the Insurance Arbitrator.

The substantial difference between the assisted negotiation pursuant to Law Decree No 132/2014 and the mediation proceeding pursuant to Legislative Decree No 28/2010 is given by the presence of an external mediator, who is not involved in the matter in dispute and has no relationship with the parties in the mediation proceeding. Such mediator shall facilitate the dialogue and the settlement of the claim between the parties.

In the assisted negotiation, the parties are assisted directly by their lawyers, who, within a certain period of time, try to find an agreement to resolve the dispute amicably.

Disputes concerning the assessment of rights, including compensation, obligations and powers relating to insurance benefits and services, or non-compliance with the rules of conduct relating to the exercise of insurance distribution activities, within the following thresholds, may be referred to the Insurance Arbitrator established with IVASS:

• the value of the dispute amounts to a maximum of EUR300,000 for life insurance contracts of Branch I that provide for a benefit in the event of death;
• up to EUR150,000 for all other life insurance contracts, including those in Branch I, other than those indicated above;
• up to EUR2,500 for civil liability insurance contracts if the action is brought by the injured third party as direct action; or
• up to EUR2.5 million in all other non-life insurance contracts.

Italian law does not provide for “punitive damages” in the strict sense, because the Italian legal system is based on the principle of indemnity: compensation is paid for the damage suffered, not to penalise the person responsible for the damage.

Any unjustified delay in the performance of the insurance service gives rise to an obligation of the insurer to pay default interests (and/or legal interest, depending on the circumstances).

When the insurer delays the payment of compensation under a non-life insurance contract without justified reason or justifies the non-payment on the basis of clearly dilatory and unfounded circumstances, the insurer has to compensate and/or indemnify the insured (even beyond the maximum limits expressly agreed in the policy).

Pursuant to Article 1916 of the Civil Code, the insurer who has paid the indemnity is subrogated, up to the amount paid, to the rights of the insured against the liable third party.

In Italian law, subrogation constitutes a specific succession in the right claimed by the insured party against the third party responsible for the harmful event, with full and comprehensive substitution of the insured party who has suffered damage.

The right of subrogation has its limits and is not permitted if the damage is caused by the insured’s children, ascendants, other relatives or relatives by marriage living permanently with the insured, or by domestics of the insured.

The Italian market is no exception to the general fast-growing use of insurtech solutions. The developments regard, in particular, the following areas.

• Artificial intelligence – essential to allow insurers fast and accurate replies to customer queries as well as a reduction in costs.
• Internet of things (IoT) – use of network-connected devices, ranging from GPS systems installed in vehicles to wearable devices collecting health data, to optimise data collection, and allow real-time data collection and the personalisation of insurance policies.
• Data analysis – enables insurers to develop predictive models based on customer habits, in order to meet future insurance needs.
• Blockchain technology – improves data security standards and enables secure and efficient data collection.

Any collection of data, in particular of health data, has to respect the limitations and obligations set forth under the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679).

The legal framework on insurtech is provided for, in particular, by:

• IVASS Regulation No 38/2018 regulating, inter alia, the traceability of the data life cycle, ICT planning and risk management.
• DORA – Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 on digital operational resilience for the financial sector.
• Data Act – Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 on harmonised rules on fair access to and use of data.
• AI Act – Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence.

The Italian regulator further uses tools such as innovation hubs and regulation sandboxes to allow a direct and open dialogue with the market.

The most recent regulatory measure regarding insurtech is IVASS Regulation No 56/2025 whereby a digital system for managing compulsory vehicle and boat insurance and accident reporting has been introduced. By 6 April 2026, insurers must provide the policyholders with IT applications, through software designed and developed for use on mobile devices and accessible via the internet, for completing accident report forms and electronic transmission of said forms.

With regard to the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), the Italian Supervisory authority has issued two letters to the market, clarifying the obligations of the insurance undertakings regarding the filing of reports of serious cyber incidents and cyber threats and the filing of the information to be collected in the register of information on all contractual agreements for the use of ICT services provided by third-party suppliers.

The Italian insurance market is increasingly exposed to systemic and emerging risks, mainly driven by climate change, digitalisation, technological innovation and demographic trends. IVASS closely monitors these risks through thematic reviews, ongoing supervisory dialogue and alignment with EU regulatory initiatives.

1. Climate change and natural catastrophe risks – natural catastrophes (such as floods, earthquakes and extreme weather events) represent a structural risk for the Italian market, which has been further intensified by climate change. These risks have recently been addressed at legislative level, with the introduction of mandatory insurance coverage against catastrophic risks for all Italian enterprises, aimed at reducing the protection gap and strengthening economic resilience. In this context, IVASS regularly monitors insurers’ exposure to catastrophe risks, their underwriting and reinsurance strategies and the related capital impacts under Solvency II.

2. Longevity and demographic risks – demographic trends, including increased longevity and low birthrates, affect life insurance and long-term protection products. IVASS addresses these risks within its prudential and ESG supervisory framework, monitoring insurers’ assumptions, provisioning and long-term sustainability.

3. Cyber risk and digital resilience – cyber risk is growing due to the increasing digitalisation of insurance operations, while market demand for cyber insurance remains limited. IVASS has strengthened supervisory expectations on ICT risk management, incident reporting and outsourcing governance, in line with the EU Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), with a focus on operational resilience and consumer protection.

Overall, IVASS’s approach is based on continuous monitoring, stronger governance and risk management expectations, and alignment with EU rules, rather than on ad hoc national measures.

In response to emerging systemic risks, the Italian insurance market is developing new products and alternative solutions aimed at improving protection, resilience and prevention, often combining traditional insurance coverage with value-added services.

1. Climate change and natural catastrophe risks – recent market research shows that, following the legislative obligation for Italian enterprises to take out catastrophe insurance, most insurance undertakings now offer CAT/NAT (regarding catastrophes and natural disasters) products. Coverage is typically provided either as part of a property insurance policy or as standalone insurance, mainly covering earthquakes, floods and hailstorms. Some products are tailored to specific sectors, such as agriculture. By contrast, business interruption coverage and parametric insurance solutions are still less widespread.

2. Longevity and demographic risks are mainly addressed through Long-Term Care (LTC) insurance policies. While most insurance undertakings offer this type of coverage, market demand remains limited due to low customer awareness and relatively high costs. To enhance the perceived value of these products, insurers increasingly combine insurance coverage with ancillary services, such as personalised home-care, agreements with nursing homes and access to healthcare facilities.

3. As regards cyber risk, only around half of insurance undertakings currently offer cyber-insurance products, covering risks such as malware, ransomware and cyber extortion, data breaches and business interruption. To raise awareness and improve risk prevention, insurers increasingly complement cyber policies with additional services, including risk assessments, monitoring tools, staff training and partnerships with IT and cybersecurity providers.

Regarding recent developments, most notably, Italy has introduced a new compulsory insurance requirement for Italian businesses registered in the Business Register and foreign companies with a branch in Italy (excluding agricultural enterprises) covering damages caused by natural catastrophic events (such as earthquakes, floods and similar calamities). This reform represents a structural change for the non-life market and entails important prudential and conduct-of-business implications, including risk accumulation management, reinsurance arrangements and transparency of policy terms. The increased exposure to catastrophe risk may also incentivise the use of ART solutions, including insurance-lined securities (such as catastrophe bonds).

From a policyholder protection perspective, the regulatory framework has been strengthened through the establishment of new safeguards. In particular, the Life Insurance Guarantee Fund (Fondo di garanzia vita) has been set up to protect policyholders in the event of a crisis or insolvency of a life insurance undertaking.

In addition, an Insurance Arbitrator (Arbitro assicurativo) has been introduced as a dedicated alternative dispute resolution mechanism, enhancing consumer access to a fast and effective out-of-court system for resolving disputes with insurers and intermediaries.

With regard to Solvency II, published on 8 January 2025 as Directive (EU) 2025/2, amending Directive 2009/138/EC (“Solvency II”), it introduces a revised framework aimed at enhancing proportionality, strengthening the quality and effectiveness of supervision, and updating disclosure requirements, as well as revising the regime for long-term guarantee measures, macro-prudential tools, sustainability and climate-related risks, and cross-border and group supervision. Italy, as well as other member states, is required to adopt the necessary legislative, regulatory and administrative measures to comply with the amended Solvency II framework by the date of application (29 January 2027).

Regarding insolvency and resolution, the Italian supervisory authority is closely monitoring EU-level developments on Directive (EU) 2025/1113 (the Insurance Recovery and Resolution Directive – IRRD), which establishes a recovery and resolution framework for the insurance sector and will impact crisis-management arrangements for insurance undertakings. The focus on IRRD is also driven by recent cases of insolvency involving certain Italian and European insurance undertakings with policyholders in Italy, which have prompted the Italian supervisor to place heightened attention on early-intervention tools, policyholder protection mechanisms and the effectiveness of cross-border supervisory co-operation.