Pledge over life insurance policies and Article 1923 of the Italian Civil Code: the Genoa Court of Appeal confirms the validity of voluntary security

With judgment no. 1/2026, published on 7 January 2026, the Genoa Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal lodged by an account holder who had taken out three life insurance policies subsequently pledged to a bank as security for credit facilities granted for his business. Following default and after the policies had been seized in criminal proceedings that later ended in acquittal, the policies were released and redeemed by the bank’s assignee.

At first instance, the policyholder sought a declaration of nullity of the pledges over the policies for breach of Article 1923 of the Italian Civil Code and for alleged indeterminacy of the secured claim, as well as restitution of the sums collected by the creditor. The Court of Genoa dismissed all claims. The decision was then appealed.

The judgment provides significant guidance on the scope of Article 1923 (“Sums due by the insurer to the policyholder or beneficiary may not be subject to enforcement or precautionary measures”) and on the requirements for a valid pledge over life insurance policies. First, the Court excluded any analogical extension of Article 1923 to voluntary acts of disposition—such as the creation of a pledge—noting that the provision concerns only cases where unavailability arises independently of the will of the policyholder. The Court emphasised that “the voluntary nature of the restriction imposed on the policy through a pledge agreement distinguishes this case from the scenario envisaged in Article 1923”.

Secondly, while acknowledging some indeterminacy in the original pledge deeds, the Court gave weight to the subsequent written instrument, which it deemed sufficiently certain to constitute “a valid pledge” (with a certain date and clear identification of the secured obligations and pledged assets). This document was considered an autonomous title capable, on its own, of justifying return of the policies to the creditor.

The Court additionally observed that the appellant had not denied having relinquished possession of the policies to the bank, noting that he himself had stated in pleadings that the policies had been seized from the bank and had not challenged the existence of the pledge endorsements.

The bank was represented by Cassinelli Studio Legale, with Nicola Cassinelli and Lorenzo Porzio.