The challenges of insuring priceless artifacts: Why some treasures remain unprotected

The audacious €88 million (around $102 million) Louvre heist has reignited global debate over whether priceless cultural artifacts can and should be insured.

The French government has confirmed that the royal jewels stolen from the Louvre in Paris, including historic tiaras and earrings from the sets of Queen Marie-Amélie and Queen Hortense, were not privately insured.

At first glance, this may seem like an oversight. In reality, the decision is consistent with what experts describe as industry reality rather than an exception.

Valuation: The biggest barrier to insuring historical works

Typically, high-value artworks are insured based on recent auction results, private sales records, or retail replacement value. These valuation models function well for paintings by Monet, Klimt, or Basquiat. But for national treasures or relics of singular historical significance, there are no comparables.

“That’s why it’s not necessarily a surprise that these jewels were not insured,” said Petra Warrington (pictured), art and luxury partner at Wedlake Bell. “Valuation is the single greatest challenge. The value is so great that no private insurer could realistically underwrite the risk.”

For insurers, covering such works is not simply a matter of high premiums. The biggest question posed: how do you assign a monetary value to symbols of national identity or pieces tied to foundational moments of history?

In the commercial art market, private museums and foundations typically insure through specialist underwriters in London, Zurich, or New York. Institutions such as the Louis Vuitton Foundation or the Pinault Collection carry robust commercial policies supported by reinsurers who diversify risk globally. In contrast, the Louvre is a state-owned institution and is self-insured. France’s Ministry of Culture confirmed to Le Parisien that the state acts as its own insurer.

Financial compensation is only part of the equation. For artifacts of national significance, the true loss is cultural. Warrington said the theft, which unfolded in a matter of minutes inside one of the world’s most secure museums, has stunned the art world.

“Everyone feels that it's an enormous loss… to heritage generally,” she said. “Any recovery prospects obviously get much more difficult as the days go on.”

Security and liability considerations for high-value items

Lenders often impose stringent security provisions for high-value artifacts. According to Warrington, typical clauses in loan agreements include 24-hour CCTV monitoring, dedicated security guards with constant visual oversight, regular patrols in non-public hours, and GPS-tracked vehicles and follow cars during the item’s transit.

Failure to meet these standards can expose museums to liability from private lenders. “Lenders expect fully functioning, modern, and robust security systems,” Warrington said. “If those expectations are not met, they could certainly expect some sort of claim.”

The Louvre’s security has come under fire in the wake of the brazen heist. The Guardian reported that the museum has defended its allegedly outdated security setup, stating that the display cases containing the Napoleonic jewellery, installed in 2019, were “a considerable improvement” in security.

The Louvre heist has prompted calls for heightened oversight and modernization of security infrastructure at cultural institutions. The incident could also induce a global tightening of underwriting guidelines for institutions seeking private coverage or indemnity protection.

Most expensive artworks and national treasures ever stolen