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

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

McCarthy Denning—Harvey Knight & Martin Sandler

McCarthy Denning—Harvey Knight & Martin Sandler

Financial services and regulatory offering boosted by partner hires

NEWS
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
back-to-top-scroll