CJEU gave new preliminary ruling on jurisdiction in insurance matters

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its judgement in Case C‑106/17 (Paweł Hofsoe v LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster AG) taken on 31 January 2018 interpreted the jurisdiction articles of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast Brussels Regulation).

In the dispute of the main proceedings a vehicle belonging to a natural person domiciled in Poland was damaged in a traffic accident in Germany caused by a person insured with an insurer domiciled in Germany. The injured party concluded a contract for the assignment of his claim, whereby he transferred his right to damages to a businessman, who exercises his commercial activity in Poland. The assignee brought an action against the insurance company domiciled in Germany before a Polish court, relying on the jurisdiction rule that the insurance company may be sued before the court of the injured party’s place of domicile.

Having regard to this matter the referring court asked the CJEU whether the jurisdiction rules of the Recast Brussels Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person, whose professional activity consists, inter alia, in recovering claims for damages from insurers may bring a civil liability action against the insurer of the person responsible for that accident, which has its registered office in a Member State other than the Member State of the place of domicile of the injured party, before a court of the Member State in which the injured party is domiciled.

In the interpretation of the CJEU the rules of jurisdiction must be highly predictable and founded on the principle that jurisdiction is generally based on the defendant’s domicile, thus the derogations from the principle of jurisdiction of the defendant’s domicile must be exceptional in nature and be interpreted strictly. The CJEU outlined that the purpose of the provisions on special rules of jurisdiction is to protect the weaker party by rules of jurisdiction more favourable to his interests than the general rules. It follows that no special protection is justified where the parties concerned are professionals in the insurance sector, none of whom may be presumed to be in a weaker position than the other. According to CJEU the action at issue in the main proceedings concerns relations between professionals.

On those grounds, the CJEU ruled that Article 13(2) of the Recast Brussels Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 11(1)(b) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that it may not be relied on by any person, whose professional activity consists, inter alia, in recovering claims for damages from insurers as the assignee of the injured party’s claim, to bring a civil liability action against the insurer of the person responsible for that accident, which has its registered office in a Member State other than the Member State of the place of domicile of the injured party, before a court of the Member State in which the injured party is domiciled.

On that basis it is worth for insurance companies to examine the person who brought the action for damages against it before the court of the injured party’s place of domicile. Namely, if the action is brought not by the injured party himself, but by a person who exercises professional activity as the assignee of the injured parties’ claim, the jurisdiction of the court of the injured party’s place of domicile can be challenged as described above.

Back to news