On the same day, the Court of Appeal said there was no ambiguity in the policy, which explicitly excludes coverage for business interruption in the event of cessation of activities. The court also considered that the President of the Court lacked competent to assess the claims made by the restaurateur against his insurer.
After winning the case, the French group confirmed that its insurance policy clearly excluded compensation for business interruption in the event of a government-imposed decision to shut down institutions.