Renting a safe deposit box from a bank is often seen as the ultimate in security for your most precious possessions. This confidence is based on the image of solidity and inviolability projected by banking establishments. However, in the event of a loss, theft or simple inability to access their valuables, customers can find themselves at a loss and faced with a complex process for getting their loss recognised. The relationship between you and your bank is not a simple lease; the complete legal framework for the bank safe deposit box contract is a specific construction, largely shaped by case law, which imposes far more onerous obligations on the banker than on a traditional lessor. Our firm, which specialises in banking liability disputesIn this section, we take a look at the mechanisms of this responsibility, the challenges of proof and the defences available to the establishment.
The banker's obligation: a reinforced obligation of result
The safe deposit box contract does not fall under the traditional categories of deposit or hire. The courts consider it to be a contract sui generisIn other words, of its own species, with an original legal regime. This classification is not merely a theoretical subtlety; it has major practical consequences. It allows the banker to be subject to a range of obligations that vary in intensity but are all aimed at maximising security for the customer. At the heart of this system is a duty of safekeeping that is akin to a reinforced obligation of result, far more restrictive than the general principles of a banker's liability which are more often based on a simple obligation of means.
The obligation to ensure free access to the safe-deposit box (Crédit Lyonnais case)
One of the fundamental services promised by the bank is to allow customers to access their assets whenever they wish, during opening hours. This obligation, which may seem obvious, was dramatically highlighted by the fire at the Crédit Lyonnais head office in 1996. Following the fire, a danger order rendered the safes inaccessible for a long period. The Court of Cassation ruled that by no longer ensuring free access to the compartments, the bank had failed in one of its essential obligations. As a result, the bank was required to compensate customers for the loss they had suffered, such as the inability to present bearer bonds when they matured and the resulting loss of interest (Cass. com., 11 Oct. 2005, no. 03-10.975). This ruling shows that the banker's liability is not limited solely to the physical protection of the contents, but extends to their availability.
The duty to monitor and control access (intensity of the obligation)
It is the bank's duty to put in place rigorous procedures to check the identity and credentials of anyone going to open a safe-deposit box. It is not enough to hold the key to be authorised to access it. Case law describes this monitoring obligation as a simple obligation of means. This means that the bank is not automatically liable in the event of fraudulent access, but it must prove that it has taken all the care of a normally prudent professional. In practice, the courts are very demanding. For example, they have upheld the bank's fault for allowing the account holder's son, who had the key, to access the safe-deposit box without verifying the existence of a mandate. Similarly, authorising access to a courier on the sole knowledge that he sometimes accompanied authorised representatives constitutes gross negligence (Cass. 1re civ., 15 Nov. 1988). The mere presentation of the key is therefore not sufficient to relieve the bank of its liability.
The obligation to preserve the contents (against theft, deterioration and damage)
This is the banker's most fundamental obligation under the contract. He must take all necessary measures to ensure that the items in the safe deposit box are protected against theft, break-in, flooding or any other form of deterioration. Case law consistently qualifies this obligation to preserve as an obligation of result. For customers, the difference is significant: they do not have to prove that the bank is at fault. All they have to do is prove the existence of damage (the disappearance or deterioration of an asset) for the bank's liability to be presumed. It is then up to the banker, to exonerate himself, to prove that the damage resulted from a cause beyond his control, such as force majeure, which is very rarely accepted.
Non-application of article 1722 of the Civil Code: specific nature of the contract
In an attempt to avoid liability, particularly in the event of destruction of the premises by fire or flood, banks have often sought to treat the safe deposit box contract as a simple rental contract (lease). This would have enabled them to invoke article 1722 of the Civil Code, which provides that if the leased property is destroyed by an act of God, the lease is terminated ipso jure without any compensation being due to the lessee. The Court of Cassation firmly and definitively rejected this analysis. It ruled that the obligation to supervise and preserve was such an essential component of the safe deposit box contract that it could not be treated as a simple lease. In rejecting article 1722, the courts confirmed the specific nature of this contract and the heightened liability regime applicable to the banking institution.
The banker's liability: proof and exoneration
Even if the liability regime is strict, bringing an action against your bank is not a simple formality. The customer has to overcome significant evidential hurdles, and the bank has defences at its disposal to try to limit, or even waive, its obligation to pay compensation. Knowledge of these mechanisms is essential if you are to assess your chances of success before taking legal action.
Proving the loss suffered by the customer: a delicate challenge
The main stumbling block for the victim is proving the contents of the safe deposit box and its value. The secrecy surrounding deposits turns against the customer at the time of the dispute. How can you prove the presence of family jewellery, gold bars or a collection of rare coins if no inventory has been drawn up? Proof is freely available against the bank, which is a merchant. The customer can therefore use any means: testimonies, photographs, purchase invoices, previous insurance appraisals. The lower courts have developed a pragmatic approach and assess the credibility of the customer's statements using a range of clues. In particular, they will take into account the victim's social and professional situation. A jeweller, for example, will have less difficulty justifying the presence of precious stones in his safe than an individual on a modest income. Despite this flexibility, building a solid case remains a decisive step.
Limitation of liability clauses: validity and limits (gross negligence)
Most safe deposit box contracts contain clauses capping the amount of compensation payable by the bank in the event of a claim. In principle, these clauses are valid. However, they cannot be applied if the bank is guilty of gross negligence. Gross negligence is defined by case law as a breach of an essential obligation of the contract, revealing the debtor's inability to perform his duties. In the context of a safe deposit box, failure to check the identity of a person arriving to open the box or a serious breach of the obligation to supervise the safe deposit box will most likely be classified as gross negligence. If such misconduct is proven, the clause limiting liability is deemed not to have been written, and the customer may then claim full compensation for his loss, provided, of course, that he can prove it.
The victim's fault and shared responsibility
The bank may seek to exonerate itself by invoking the customer's own fault. If this fault is the sole cause of the loss, the bank will be fully exonerated. More frequently, the blame is shared. For example, in a case where a customer forgot to put a safety deposit box back in its compartment after removing items from it, the courts found that the bank was jointly liable. The judges found that the bank had also been negligent in its supervision of the safe deposit box room, leading to a sharing of the compensation. Mere negligence on the part of the customer is therefore not always sufficient to completely relieve the bank of its obligations.
Force majeure: a rarely accepted reason for exoneration
To be completely exonerated from liability, the bank can invoke force majeure, i.e. an unforeseeable, irresistible and external event. However, the courts are extremely strict in their assessment of this concept in relation to banks. The reason is simple: customers take out a safe deposit box contract precisely to protect themselves against serious events. For example, an armed robbery (hold-up) is not generally considered to be a case of force majeure, because it is a risk inherent in banking activity. Similarly, the Crédit Lyonnais fire was not considered an unforeseeable and irresistible event. This strictness of the case law establishes the banker's duty of security as a quasi-absolute commitment, which can only be avoided in very exceptional circumstances.
Solent avocats: your advice on banking liability
The contractual relationship that surrounds the provision of a safe deposit box is much more protective of the customer than it might seem. The banker is bound by strict obligations, in particular an obligation of result as regards the safekeeping of your assets. However, asserting his liability in the event of a dispute is a technical process that requires a precise analysis of the facts and a mastery of the rules of evidence. Whether it's a question of contesting a clause limiting liability, demonstrating the existence of gross negligence or gathering evidence to prove the value of missing assets, the assistance of a lawyer is often essential to restore the balance with the bank. If you are faced with a dispute concerning your safe deposit box, do not hesitate to contact our firm for a review of your situation and a strategy tailored to defending your rights.
Sources
- Civil Code
- Monetary and Financial Code
- Commercial code
EN 
FR