Category Archives: Insurance

Assens Havn v Navigators Management (UK) Limited Case C-368/16 – jurisdiction clauses, third party actions against insurers

This blog post is by Philip Mead of 12 King’s Bench Walk.

Claims in matters relating to insurance: does an exclusive jurisdiction clause between the insurer and the policyholder bind a third party bringing a direct right of action against the insurer? No, held the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-368/16, Assens Havn v Navigators Management (UK) Limited (Judgment of the Eighth Chamber, 13 July 2017). Continue reading Assens Havn v Navigators Management (UK) Limited Case C-368/16 – jurisdiction clauses, third party actions against insurers

Cruise and Maritime Services International Limited v Navigators Underwriting Agency Limited [2017] EWHC 843 (Comm) – Athens Convention, Insurance

This blog post is by James Beeton of 12 King’s Bench Walk.

In this short but interesting judgment, Knowles J considered the liability of insurance underwriters in the context of sums paid out by a cruise company following a sickness outbreak on a cruise ship. His judgment emphasises the centrality in disputes of this nature of the contractual relationship between the various parties and the wording of the relevant policy.

This case involved an outbreak of norovirus on a cruise ship in July 2009, which was significant enough that the voyage had to be cut short. The head charterers of the vessel held a policy of insurance underwritten by the Defendant. The Claimant cruise company was named as a co-insured under that policy. The affected passengers were told that they would receive payments from their various tour operators to cover the amount they had paid for the cruise along with other sums. The Claimant agreed to meet those costs and then sought an indemnity against the liabilities it claimed to have incurred as the ‘contracting carrier’ under the Athens Convention 1974. Continue reading Cruise and Maritime Services International Limited v Navigators Underwriting Agency Limited [2017] EWHC 843 (Comm) – Athens Convention, Insurance

Keefe v Hoteles Piñero Canarias SL – Judgments Regulation, Jurisdiction, Insurers

On Tuesday 7 March 2017, the Supreme Court heard submissions in this important case concerning jurisdiction under the Judgments Regulation. Philip Mead of 12 King’s Bench Walk appeared for the Appellant (led before the Supreme Court by James Collins QC). This blog summarises the submissions heard by the court. Continue reading Keefe v Hoteles Piñero Canarias SL – Judgments Regulation, Jurisdiction, Insurers

Keefe v Hoteles Piñero Canarias SL to be heard by Supreme Court

Philip Mead, a member of 12KBW’s International and Travel team, appears in the Supreme Court tomorrow, in an important case about cross-border tort and insurance jurisdictional disputes. This blog will feature a write-up of the submissions heard by the court after the hearing.

Philip appears for the appellant, a Spanish hotel company, in Keefe v Hoteles Pinero Canarias SL. The English Claimant – the respondent in this appeal – was allegedly injured in a serious accident at the hotel in 2006. As the accident occurred before January 2009, the Rome II Regulation did not apply.

The Claimant had a direct right of action against the appellant’s insurance company under Spanish law, and brought this claim in the English courts under the Judgments Regulation, following the decision of the CJEU in Odenbreit.

The insurance company – the first Defendant in the action – admitted liability to compensate, but averred that there was a limit on their liability which would fall far short of the Claimant’s estimate of his damages.

The Claimant sought permission to join the appellant hotel company as a second defendant, relying on Regulation 11(3) of the Judgments Regulation, which provides that:

‘If the law governing such direct actions provides that the policyholder or the insured may be joined as a party to the action, the same court shall have jurisdiction over them.’

The application was granted by Master Cook, and upheld on appeal by HHJ Higgins in the High Court, and then by the Court of Appeal.

Philip Mead therefore appears for the hotel in the Supreme Court, in an appeal which will provide much-needed clarity to the way in which jurisdictional provisions relating to insurance and tort overlap and interact.

Submissions in the case will be streamed live on the Supreme Court’s website.