In this blog post, Spencer Turner considers the recent decision of Andrews J in Hutchinson v Mapfre España Compañia de Seguros Y Reaseguros SA and another  EWHC 178 (QB). The case involved a number of important issues for cross-border practitioners:
- The extent to which the consumer contract provisions of Brussels I (Recast) depend on a defendant’s commercial activities influencing a particular consumer’s decision to contract.
- The so-called “Keefe” question concerning joinder of a foreign insured to a direct claim against its liability insurer.
- And, most significantly, the impact of a ‘territorial scope’ clause in the liability insurance policy on the availability of a direct action under the Odenbreit principles.
Continue reading “Territorial scope” clauses and Odenbreit: new High Court ruling
In Pandya v Intersalonika General Insurance Co SA  EWHC 273 (QB), Tipples J considered as a preliminary issue whether the claimant’s case should be struck out on the basis that it was time-barred. The case involves an interesting analysis of whether service will be treated as a matter of evidence and procedure under art. 1(3) of Rome II (and therefore governed by the lex fori) or whether it is a matter relevant to the question of limitation under art. 15(h) (and therefore governed by the lex causae).
A helpful summary of the decision was written by the defendant’s counsel (which is available here). This blog considers the full transcript of the judgment which has now been approved by the judge: it is available on Lawtel and Westlaw. Continue reading Limitation and Rome II: is service a matter of procedure?