Is there a guarantee fund for my assurance-vie? What can be said in France and Europe

In France, the Personal Insurance Guarantee Fund (FGAP) would compensate policyholders of a defaulting insurance company up to €70,000 per client, according to economie.gouv.fr (the conditional tense is used by the source). According to the ACPR (French Prudential Control and Resolution Authority), this limit applies to each insured party, subscriber, member, or beneficiary, for all their contracts with the defaulting company. The ACPR specifies that the FGAP does not intervene for companies from another European Economic Area (EEA) state that operate in France under the freedom to provide services or the freedom of establishment. In Europe, the EIOPA documents cited here mention a need for harmonized minimum standards. For a Luxembourg contract, this page does not resolve the question of a fund: it neither confirms nor excludes it.

What is established in France: the FGAP

The website economie.gouv.fr describes the FGAP as a separate fund from the deposit guarantee fund. It would compensate savers of a defaulting insurance company up to €70,000 per client (conditional statement from the source). For assurance-vie annuities (death, disability, incapacity), the limit is €90,000.

To give a sense of scale, the same page cites the other French limits: €100,000 per depositor and per institution for deposits, and €70,000 per client and per institution for securities. These two figures concern bank accounts and securities accounts, not assurance-vie.

The page on economie.gouv.fr is undated. It uses the conditional tense (the fund would "compensate" savers). In the Insurance Code, the ACPR cites articles L. 423-1 to L. 423-8 for this fund, and article R. 423-7 for the ceiling raised to €90,000 (disability or incapacity pensions and annuities resulting from a death insurance contract).

What the ACPR says about the FGAP field

A page from the ACPR, the French regulatory authority, addresses the guarantee funds that are competent in the event of an insurance company's failure. It states that the FGAP (French Guarantee Fund for Personal Insurance Companies) does not intervene in the event of the failure of assurance-vie companies operating in France under the freedom to provide services or the freedom of establishment "upon entry." This applies to companies established in another EEA (European Economic Area) state.

The page does not mention Luxembourg. Therefore, we cannot draw any conclusions about a Luxembourg insurer from this page.

The ACPR page is undated: it bears the inscription "©2026 Banque de France". It cites, for the FGAP, articles L. 423-1 to L. 423-8 of the Insurance Code.

Very different national systems

EIOPA, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, writes that national frameworks for insurance guarantee schemes vary widely in scope, coverage, and even existence. In some Member States, no system exists. In others, schemes cover only certain lines of business. According to EIOPA, at least 17 Member States have a system (EIOPA Opinion BoS 26/176 of 30/04/2026, § 3.15).

In 2019, EIOPA expressed, in a draft opinion submitted for consultation (press release of 12/07/2019), the position that each Member State should have a national guarantee scheme in place. The 2026 opinion reiterates this position. It does not constitute a binding rule.

The Insolvency Restructuring and Resolution Directive (IRRD)

Directive (EU) 2025/1 of 27/11/2024 establishes a framework for the recovery and resolution of insurance and reinsurance undertakings, known as IRRD. EIOPA indicates that it applies from 30/01/2027. The CAA writes that it "will become operational in 2027".

This directive does not harmonize guarantee schemes. In its IRRD fact sheet of April 2025, EIOPA states that other issues, including these schemes, remain on the political agenda. The European Commission has asked EIOPA for an opinion on common minimum standards, within the framework of Article 98 of the directive. This is the subject of the opinion of April 30, 2026.

And what about a Luxembourg contract?

We are not taking a position on the existence of a specific assurance-vie guarantee mechanism in Luxembourg. The texts cited on this page do not provide a definitive answer.

What the CAA documents describe, however, are other protective measures: CAA oversight, the custodian bank, asset segregation, and the privileged status of insurance claims. These are discussed in our dedicated sections.

Before subscribing, ask the insurer in writing:

• what authority controls it; ;
• what protection mechanism applies to your contract, and within what limits; ;
• where the assets representing your rights are deposited.

Keep his response with the contract.

What this page does not do

This page does not compare the protection offered by a French contract with that of a Luxembourg contract. It does not quantify any compensation for a Luxembourg contract. And it does not present any directive establishing a guarantee fund.

Numerical example (fictitious profile)

Situation. A hypothetical investor holds €100,000 in a contract with a French company. This company goes bankrupt. The €100,000 is a hypothetical scenario.

Issue. She assumes that the fund covers the entirety of her contract.

Strategy. Read the limit before estimating your exposure: €70,000 per customer for savings with a failing company, according to economie.gouv.fr, for all contracts taken out with the failing company according to the ACPR. Here, only one contract.

Result. The portion of the contract exceeding the limit is €30,000, or 30% of the amount. This example only applies if the FGAP (French Guarantee Fund for Professional Liabilities) is competent for the insurer in question. The texts cited here do not specify whether all types of contracts are covered, for example, unit-linked contracts. It makes no mention of a Luxembourg contract.

CALCULATION: 100,000 − 70,000 = 30,000; 30,000 ÷ 100,000 = 30. The €100,000 is an assumption of the fictitious profile.

What changes depending on your situation

• The country where the insurer is established. It determines the original controlling authority.
• The method of intervention in France. Freedom to provide services, freedom of establishment or insurer established in France: the ACPR page distinguishes these cases.
• The nature of the sum. Savings or pension benefits: the ceilings mentioned are not the same.
• The number of contracts. According to the ACPR, the €70,000 limit applies to each insured party, policyholder, member, or beneficiary, across all insurance contracts with the defaulting company. Therefore, two contracts with the same company are cumulative within this limit.

These points are examined on a case-by-case basis. No result is guaranteed in advance.