header-logo header-logo

16 February 2017 / Kelvin Farmaner
Issue: 7735 / Categories: Features , Insurance surgery , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Insurance surgery: liability & multi-party accidents abroad

nlj_7735_farmaner

The Court of Appeal has provided welcome clarity on determining which laws should apply in cross-border cases, says Kelvin Farmaner

  • Art 4(3) of Rome II in multi-tort cases.
  • When determining the applicable law, it is relevant to look at all of the claims against the other parties not just the specific claim advanced against the defendant in question.

The growth of international travel for both work and pleasure has meant the number of injury claims relating to accidents abroad has increased. However, the fact that an accident occurred abroad may create a number of difficulties. One such difficulty is the question of which law will apply to the resulting claims. For all accidents occurring after 11 January 2009, this is governed by Regulation (EC) 864/2007 (known as Rome II); Art 4 of which deals with choice of law and sets out a general principle, an exception and an escape clause.

The general principle: Art 4(1)

The general principle is that the applicable law will be

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll