Legal expenses insurance: choice of lawyer, fees and grounds for refusal

In short

In court, administrative and arbitration proceedings and in approved mediation, you choose your own lawyer; the same applies in any conflict of interest with the insurer (Insurance Act, art. 156). The insurer may, however, handle the pre-litigation amicable stage with its own staff.

Free choice does not mean unlimited fees: in most policies lawyers’ fees are paid up to the caps set by Royal Decree (28.6.2019); expert and mediator fees are also covered (Act of 22.4.2019, art. 8).

If the insurer says your case “has no chance”, you can invoke the objectivity clause (art. 157).

The procedure to review a driving disqualification (Road Traffic Act, art. 44) is not a defence against prosecution; if the policy only says “criminal defence”, the insurer may refuse. But if the wording is unclear, it is interpreted in your favour (art. 23 §2).

The “taking part in a brawl” exclusion does not automatically apply to self-defence; the insurer must prove that the exclusion’s conditions are met.

After a claim, the insurer can cancel only if it reserved that right, and you then have the same right (art. 86). The tax deduction was abolished from 2025 premiums.

Legal expenses insurance (protection juridique / rechtsbijstand) is often cover you have without knowing it: in your car policy, your home or family policy, a standalone contract, sometimes a bank package. According to the Insurance Ombudsman, requests in this area rose by 36% in 2025 and one third of complaints concerned refusals of cover. This guide first explains the system, then the three most common grounds for refusal.

What does legal expenses insurance pay for, and what not?

The insurer provides services and pays costs so that you can defend your rights in court, in administrative proceedings or out of court (Insurance Act, art. 154). Typical uses:

recovering your loss from the other party (e.g. bodily injury or loss of use after a road accident),
criminal defence (e.g. unintentional injury),
a dispute with your own insurer,
a counter-expert or your own medical adviser.

In policies following the 2019 Act, cover includes at least: fees of lawyers, bailiffs, experts, technical advisers, mediators and arbitrators, court costs and enforcement costs (Act of 22.4.2019, art. 8 §1). The same Act allows certain exclusions: disputes involving motor vehicles (hence a separate “legal expenses – motor” cover in car policies), a simple failure to pay without dispute, professional activity, disputes about the legal expenses contract itself, and certain acts involving intent or gross fault (art. 7 §2). Waiting periods are also allowed: e.g. at most 1 year for contract and employment disputes, 3 years for divorce; no waiting period may apply to other disputes (art. 6 §2).

Important: traffic fines themselves can never be insured (Insurance Act, art. 155). The Ombudsman also found that many policies say nothing about municipal administrative sanctions (sanctions administratives communales); look for this item in your policy.

My legal expenses insurer won’t pay the lawyer I chose: what do “go through our legal department first” and “the cap has been exceeded” mean?

You have a right to choose your lawyer freely, but not at every stage and not for any amount. The answer depends on the ground the insurer relies on.

“Go through our legal department first.” Free choice of lawyer arises when judicial, administrative or arbitration proceedings are needed; in mediation and similar procedures you also choose the qualified person (art. 156, 1°). The Constitutional Court held that mediation with an approved mediator falls within this rule (CC 138/2020; CJEU C-667/18). At the pre-litigation amicable stage, however, the insurer may handle the case with its own legal staff; in its 2024 opinion the FSMA Insurance Commission also stated that the insurer’s right to settle the case amicably through its own staff, outside the stage of judicial proceedings, must be preserved (opinion C 2024/1, 23.10.2024). The Ombudsman accepts that this stage is useful, but has criticised insurers that keep negotiating after the other side has clearly denied liability, and that fail to appoint a lawyer while criminal proceedings are running in parallel. Therefore:

Once court proceedings, mediation or prosecution have started, ask for the costs of the lawyer you chose.
If the dispute is with the legal expenses insurer itself, there is a clear conflict of interest and the choice is yours at every stage (art. 156, 2°). If the other side is a company in the same group, the Act does not list this separately; but to prevent conflicts of interest a multi-line insurer must choose one of three methods: handle legal expenses claims with separate staff (who may not also handle other-line claims for a company with financial, commercial or administrative links to the insurer), entrust them to a separate claims-handling company, or let you choose your lawyer for every claim (Royal Decree of 12.10.1990, art. 4; CBFA circular CBFA_2010_22, III.C-III.F). If the insurer also covers the other party and your interests conflict, it must inform you of your right to choose a lawyer (same circular, footnote 7: Royal Decree of 12.10.1990, art. 8). If you believe there is a conflict of interest, say so in writing with reasons and state that you have chosen your lawyer.
If you hired the lawyer before telling the insurer, you do not lose your rights: for late notification the insurer may only reduce its payment by the loss it suffered, and may refuse entirely only in case of fraud (Insurance Act, art. 74, 76). The right to choose a lawyer at the litigation stage cannot be removed by contract either (art. 156). On the other hand, the insurer may refuse amicable-stage costs incurred without its knowledge, to the extent this deprived it of the chance to settle the matter through its own department.

“The fee exceeds the policy cap.” If your policy refers to the 2019 Act, lawyers’ fees are paid up to the per-service caps in the Royal Decree; anything above is yours (Act of 22.4.2019, art. 8 §2). According to the CJEU, a fee limit may not be so low that it empties the free choice of meaning (C-442/12 Sneller). If your lawyer agrees to set fees according to the caps, they can notify you and the insurer at the same time (art. 11). In one case where the insurer’s spending on an outside lawyer during the amicable stage had eroded the limit left for litigation (only €4,174 left of a €6,750 cap), the Ombudsman asked that this be disclosed clearly. The insurer’s own internal handling costs do not count against the cap (art. 8 §5).

Experts, mediation and court costs. Fees of experts, technical advisers and mediators are part of the minimum cover (art. 8 §1, 4°). If you try mediation or conciliation, no excess applies (art. 8 §6). Where a dispute is partly covered and partly not, ask the insurer in writing for its allocation key (clé de répartition); the Ombudsman has criticised the fact that such keys are not set out in the general conditions.

Fee caps: how much is paid?

In policies following the 2019 Act, lawyers’ fees are paid up to maximum amounts per service set by Royal Decree; the amounts include costs but exclude VAT (Royal Decree of 28.6.2019). Anything above is yours, unless the insurer chooses to cover it. Examples relevant to traffic:

Procedure	Maximum total
Liability (compensation) claim before the police court or court of first instance	€5,670
Criminal defence before the police court	€3,500 (basic defence €700)
Lawyer’s assistance during a police interview (Salduz)	€2,800
Court of Cassation	€11,030

Other minimum conditions of the same Act: an overall ceiling per case of at least €13,000 in civil and €13,500 in criminal matters (may be reduced to €3,375 per insured person for divorce and to €6,750 for construction and employment disputes); an excess of at most €250; disputes worth €1,000 or less may be excluded (Act of 22.4.2019, art. 6, 8).

The insurer says “your case has no chance”: the objectivity clause

If you and the insurer disagree on how to handle the case (e.g. “the case will fail”, “accept the offer”), the following applies (art. 157):

The insurer states its view; you consult a lawyer of your choice.
If the lawyer agrees with you, the insurer must provide cover whatever the outcome and pay for the consultation.
If the lawyer agrees with the insurer, half of the consultation fee is refunded to you.
If you still go to court at your own expense and obtain a better result than the insurer predicted, the insurer must provide cover and pay the remaining costs.

The objectivity clause covers disagreements about how the case is handled. For refusals of the type “this dispute is not covered” (such as the two cases below), the route is the Ombudsman and the courts.

My procedure to get my driving licence back is refused as “a separate matter”. Isn’t it covered by criminal defence?

Neither the law nor published case law answers this directly; it depends on how the policy defines “criminal defence”. The Ombudsman discussed this dispute in its 2025 report, reported no outcome, and said contracts should be more precise on this point.

What is the procedure? If, when convicting a driver of a traffic offence, the court finds the driver physically or mentally unfit to drive, it must order a driving disqualification (déchéance du droit de conduire); the disqualification lasts until it is proven that the unfitness has ended (Road Traffic Act of 16.3.1968, art. 42). At least 6 months after the judgment becomes final, you can ask for a review by a petition to the public prosecutor addressed to the court that ordered it; the court’s decision is final and cannot be appealed; if refused, you must wait another 6 months (art. 44). According to the Court of Cassation, this disqualification is not a penalty but a safety measure (Cass. 30.1.2024, P.23.1697.N).

The insurer’s argument: there is no prosecution by the public prosecutor, but a new and separate procedure, which criminal defence cover does not include. This argument has a textual basis: the minimum cover under the 2019 Act is “the insured’s criminal defence” (art. 7 §1, 2°), and in a review you are not the accused but the applicant.

Your arguments:

The request goes, through the prosecutor, to the criminal court that convicted you, and it follows directly from the earlier criminal case.
If the policy uses broad wording such as “criminal defence” or “defence in criminal proceedings” and does not expressly exclude this procedure, any doubt is resolved in favour of the insured (Insurance Act, art. 23 §2).
Check whether your policy uses broader wording such as “proceedings before criminal courts” or “matters relating to the driving licence”. Check both the “legal expenses – motor” cover in your car policy and the cover in your family/home policy; since the 2019 Act allows motor vehicle disputes to be excluded from the general policy (art. 7 §2, 1°), the right policy is often the car policy.

Fees for the medical and psychological examinations may not count as legal costs; ask about them separately. Before starting the procedure, ask the insurer for a written, reasoned decision on cover.

I was attacked and defended myself; my insurer refused under the “taking part in a brawl” exclusion

Someone defending themselves is not someone who voluntarily joins a fight. The refusal is justified only if the conditions of the policy exclusion are actually met, and the insurer must prove this.

What does the policy say? Policies usually exclude “taking part in brawls or fights” (participation à des rixes). In policies that refer to the 2019 Act, this exclusion can apply only where the insured acted with gross fault or intent in a brawl (Act of 22.4.2019, art. 7 §2, 5°). These minimum conditions apply despite contrary policy terms as long as the policy expressly refers to them (art. 10); art. 10 is not tied to the tax deduction, so its abolition does not affect it. Merely being involved is not enough. Some policies use narrower wording such as “a fight provoked physically or verbally”; who provoked whom is then decisive.

Self-defence: a person who cannot avoid an unlawful, serious and ongoing attack and responds proportionately to repel it commits no offence. For events after 1.9.2026, the new Criminal Code, art. 14, applies; a disproportionate response caused by the intense emotion of the attack is “excessive self-defence” under art. 34, which reduces the penalty. The former Criminal Code was repealed on 1.9.2026; its art. 416-417 covered self-defence only for homicide, wounding and blows. For acts committed before 1.9.2026 and tried later, the more favourable provision applies (new Criminal Code, art. 2). The notions of “self-defence” and “brawl” in an insurance policy, however, are not tied to the Criminal Code; they are interpreted according to the policy wording and, in case of doubt, in your favour.

The Ombudsman’s position: such cases should be assessed case by case, and policy terms must be interpreted in favour of the insured (art. 23 §2).

What to do:

Ask in writing which facts the refusal is based on.
Send documents showing you were attacked: police report, witness statements, camera footage, medical certificate.
If you are the victim, claiming compensation from the attacker (as a civil party, partie civile) is a separate item; do not assume it was refused too, ask separately.
Ask the insurer at least to commit to reimbursing costs retroactively if a court accepts self-defence. For serious crimes (crimes), the Act already provides for payment only after acquittal, dismissal or limitation (art. 7 §1, 2°).

If you win: who gets the procedural indemnity?

The winning party receives from the losing party a procedural indemnity (indemnité de procédure), a flat-rate contribution to lawyers’ fees (Judicial Code, art. 1022).

The judge awards this indemnity to the winning party, i.e. to you, not to the legal expenses insurer. A different arrangement between you and the insurer does not change this (Cass. 15.2.2022, P.21.1572.N).
However, if the insurer paid your legal costs, the indemnity belongs to the insurer as between you and the insurer: you cannot have your costs paid and also keep the indemnity for yourself (Cass. 24.3.2016, C.15.0136.N).
If you paid part of the costs yourself (e.g. fees above the cap), clarify this with your lawyer and your insurer from the start.

I received a refusal letter: how do I challenge it?

Ask for the reasons in writing. For claims made after 1.10.2024, the insurer must give a reasoned reply within 3 months to your challenge on cover; otherwise a flat €300 (indexed) becomes due automatically, and a daily amount runs if there is still no reply after a reminder (art. 73/1).
Identify the type of refusal: a disagreement on handling (objectivity clause), an exclusion, a waiting period, a threshold? If an exclusion is unclear, invoke the favourable interpretation rule (art. 23 §2) and point out that the insurer must prove the exclusion applies.
Contact the Ombudsman. It is free; the Ombudsman recommends writing first to the insurer’s complaints department. In disputes with your legal expenses insurer you may apply directly. See the Ombudsman guide.
Don’t miss the deadline. The time limit for suing your insurer is generally 3 years (art. 88). See the deadlines guide.

Because disputes about the legal expenses contract itself may be excluded from cover (Act of 22.4.2019, art. 7 §2), do not expect the same policy to pay for a lawsuit against the insurer.

“Will they cancel my policy if I use it?” and the tax deduction

Cancellation is possible but regulated (Insurance Act, art. 86):

The insurer can cancel only if the policy reserves a right to cancel after a claim; you then have the same right.
Cancellation must be notified within 1 month of payment or refusal of payment and takes effect no earlier than 3 months later.
After the first year, you can cancel a non-life consumer contract at any time with 2 months’ notice (art. 85/1).

The tax deduction is gone. The tax deduction for legal expenses premiums introduced in 2019 was abolished retroactively by the Act of 18.12.2025 (art. 70, Belgian Official Gazette 30.12.2025). Premiums paid in 2025 give no deduction; the last deduction applied to 2024 premiums (on at most €320 of premium, i.e. at most €128 of tax reduction). Consequences:

The minimum conditions above were essentially the condition for the tax benefit; new policies no longer have to meet them.
However, if your policy expressly refers to these minimum conditions, they continue to apply (Act of 22.4.2019, art. 10). The Act of 18.12.2025 that abolished the tax reduction did not amend this article. According to the Ombudsman, some insurers removed or limited cover in older policies; check your current policy wording.
In 2025 the Ombudsman linked the rise in requests to premium increases, the abolition of the tax deduction, stricter acceptance and continuation criteria and higher lawyers’ fees.

Checklist

You can search case law on legal expenses insurance by topic on our Decision Search page. For refusals in general, see the refused claim guide.

Sources

This guide is general information, not legal advice. Current as of 09.10.2026.