EU Court judges on plain and intelligible language: The EU Court has held that, in insurance contracts, terms that relate to the main subject-matter must not only be grammatically intelligible to the consumer but must also set out in a transparent manner how the insurance arrangements function, so the consumer can evaluate, on the basis of "precise, intelligible criteria", the economic consequences for him. If a term does not meet these criteria, it falls to be assessed for fairness. In this case, the complainant had taken out two mortgage contracts and, at the same time, a group insurance contract that would guarantee cover of the loan repayments in the event of "total incapacity for work". Following an accident, the insurer's doctor concluded that, while the complainant could no longer carry on his original job, he could carry on appropriate employment part-time. On this basis, the insurance company refused to cover the loan repayments. The complainant said the terms of the insurance contract were unfair in respect of how they defined "total incapacity for work", saying there was a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer, and that moreover the definition was unintelligible to a consumer. The insurer said the term did not fall to be assessed for fairness as it concerned the subject matter of the contract (and moreover that the definition was clear and precise). The French court had asked the EU Court for guidance on whether it could assess whether the term was unfair. The EU Court said that the term seemed to set out the insured risk and the insurer's liability while laying down the essential obligations of the insurance contract. On this basis, it said it could not rule out that the term was a core term, but said the national court should now determine this. It also said that the requirement for terms to be transparent does not merely mean they must be "formally and grammatically intelligible". It said it was possible a consumer could not understand the term sufficiently to be able to evaluate the consequences of it, and said the national court should also determine that. Finally, it noted that, because the insurance contract was allied to the loan contract, it was not reasonable to expect the consumer to exercise the same degree of vigilance over the risks it covered as he should have done had he concluded the contracts separately. (Source: Vase C-96/14 Jean-Claude Van Hove v. CNP Assurances SA)