Choice of Court Agreements in Insurance Contracts

Choice of court agreements in civil and commercial disputes are regulated on different levels—international, regional and national. The relevant jurisdictional criteria in these various legal sources (i.e. international conventions, EU law instruments and national laws) are normally the nationality of the chosen court and the domicile/residence of the defendant. This article is focused on insurance contracts, where additional criteria are also relevant, and examines these based on Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012. The following specific scenarios are analysed: where (i) the defendant is domiciled in an EU Member State and the parties have chosen the court of an EU Member State, (ii) the defendant is not domiciled in an EU Member State but the parties have chosen an EU Member State court, (iii) the parties have chosen the court of a third State and the defendant is domiciled in an EU Member State and (iv) a third State court is chosen and the defendant is not domiciled in an EU Member State. In addition to the general regulation on jurisdictional agreements, Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 imposes some specific restrictions on the choice of court for insurance matters in particular cases. The restrictions are premised on the assumption that weaker parties in insurance disputes deserve favourable jurisdictional treatment, similar to the choice of court restrictions in consumer and employment contracts. Furthermore, should the weaker party in an insurance dispute also be a consumer, the choice of court agreement may be regarded as an unfair term in a consumer contract, and additional substantive law rules may apply to void such choice.