⚖ The Norwegian Supreme Court ruled in favour of an insurer re choice of law and liability insurance - the law of the country in which the damage occurred should not apply:
A Danish driver, resident in Denmark and employed by a Danish employer, was driving a Danish-registered motor vehicle that was insured with a Danish insurance company. The vehicle overturned during an assignment in Norway and the driver sustained personal injury. A lawsuit was brought before the Norwegian courts to determine whether Norwegian or Danish law should apply.
This was crucial as Danish - as opposed to Norwegian - motor liability insurance does not cover injury to the driver.
Both first instances concluded that Norwegian law should apply, cf. section 6 of the Norwegian Insurance Choice of Law Act section (NICLA). The reasoning was that motor liability insurance covering the driver is mandatory in Norway. However, as an EEA member state, the Motor Liability Directive (Directive 2009/103/EC) applies in Norway, whose rules allow for injury to the driver not to be covered.
The Norwegian Supreme Court concluded, contrary to the two lower ranking courts, that because the Norwegian Motor Vehicle Liability Act contains rules on both (1) conditions for liability and (2) insurance obligation, the Act differs from the motor liability regime in other countries.
The Norwegian Supreme Court then considered section 6 of the NICLA and, contrary to the result in the lower ranking courts, ruled that the fact the Norwegian Motor Liability Act combines rules on liability and insurance obligation does not mean that the injured party's claim is converted from being a compensation claim to becoming an insurance claim and therefore the NICLA does not apply in such cases.
In the specific assessment of the choice of law, the Supreme Court notes that the choice of law in the case shall not be found on the basis of the starting point in Article 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation - lex loci delicti (law of the place of the injury) - but rather on the basis of the application of the Individualising Method and Article 4(2) of the Rome II Regulation, which the Norwegian Supreme Court then concludes that Danish law must apply.
As the parties agreed that the application of Danish law would lead to the acquittal of the insurer, the Norwegian Supreme Court ruled in favour of the insurance company.
The judgement clarifies the scope of application of section 6 of the NICLA and will thus have an impact on cases in Norway concerning liability insurance with cross-border elements.
Terje Marthinsen from Kennedys Norwegian associated office, Kogstad Lunde & Co, led and won the case.
Ny Høyesterettsdom om lovvalg i forsikring
En enstemmig Høyesterett ga i dag det danske forsikringsselskapet og partshjelperne Trafikkforsikringsforeningen og Yrkesskadeforsikringsforeningen medhold i at skadestedet i Norge ikke var tilstrekkelig til at norsk rett skulle gjelde.
Saken gir viktige avklaringer om lovvalg i sakstyper der det foreligger obligatorisk ansvarsforsikring.
Les mer om saken her:
![Ny Høyesterettsdom om lovvalg i forsikring]()
Ny Høyesterettsdom om lovvalg i forsikring
klco.no
Empowering Corporate Success through Tech Excellence | Corporate Account Manager at Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting UK | Specialising in CCH and CCH Cloud Suite
3wGo team !! Well done 💪