Публикация посвящена решению по спору относительно уплаты страхового возмещения страховщиком ответственности непосредственно лицу, потерпевшему убытки. Дело осложнялось тем, что причинитель вреда (страхователь) был объявлен банкротом. Датский суд, в который было заявлено требование лица, потерпевшего убытки, непосредственно страховщику ответственности, признал себя некомпетентным, поскольку в оговорке о подсудности, содержащейся в договоре страхования, была предусмотрена исключительная подсудность английского суда. Таким образом, суд принял решение по весьма важному и остро дискуссионному проблемному вопросу: с одной стороны, заявление требования страховщику лицом, потерпевшим ущерб, непосредственно предусмотрено законом, поэтому право на такой иск не должно зависеть от договора страхования, в том числе от оговорки о подсудности, а с другой – потерпевшая вред сторона, заявляя требование страховщику, заменяет в страховом правоотношении сторону страхователя, тем самым договор страхования, в том числе оговорка о подсудности, распространяется на отношения между страховщиком ответственности и потерпевшим убытки лицом. Суд признал правильной последнюю позицию. Частноправовая чистота этого судебного решения сомнительна, поскольку нет уверенности в том, что датское право, которое применил суд, является применимым правом в рассмотренном судом международном частном правоотношении.
A Swedish carrier, SES, bareboat chartered a tugboat from its owners SST in Norway. The tugboat was used to transport a carriage of sugar beet, among other things, to a plant in Nykoebing Falster, Denmark. During carriage from the Port of Assens in Denmark to Nakskov, the tug caused damage to a pier in the Port of Assens. SES had taken out charterer’s protection and indemnity (P&I) insurance through a Swedish insurance broker and the cover was provided by Lloyd’s of London. The insurance was subject to English law and it followed from the insurance contract that disputes with the insurer were to be exclusively decided by the High Court in London:
“This insurance shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law and, in particular, be subject to and incorporate the terms of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 and any statutory modification thereto. This insurance, including any dispute arising under or in connection with it, shall also be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court of London.”
SES was subsequently declared bankrupt and legal proceedings – in order to obtain compensation for the damage to the pier – were brought directly by the port against the insurer before the Danish Maritime and Commercial Court pursuant to Section 95 of the Danish Insurance Contracts Act, which provides a right for an injured party to claim directly against the liability insurers of the party which is alleged to be liable for the damage. During the proceedings, the insurer submitted that the Danish court did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute and referred to the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the insurance contract. In particular, the insurer submitted that the jurisdiction agreement also applied to the claim brought by the Port of Assens. The port disputed that the jurisdiction clause was of any relevance to the proceedings.
Decision
The court found that the jurisdiction clause in the insurance contract did not contradict the mandatory provisions of Articles 8 to 14 of the EU Brussels I Regulation on jurisdiction agreements in insurance contracts, as the insurance contract in question was a liability insurance relating to the financial loss connected with the use or operation of ships and consequently concerned a risk in relation to which Articles 8 to 14 derogated from. Further, the court found that the jurisdiction agreement applied to the proceedings brought by the Port of Assens against the insurer as the port, pursuant to Section 95 of the Insurance Contracts Act, was found to have stepped into SES’s right to insurance coverage. The court stated as follows:
“The legal entity causing damage, SES, has been declared bankrupt and the question, on this basis, is how the Insurance Contract Act, S 95 is to be interpreted … The court finds that S 95, in accordance with its wording and its purpose, must be interpreted to the effect that the party claiming damages steps into the rights of the insured against the insurer, including any possible special terms and conditions applicable between these parties, in this case, the choice of law and jurisdiction agreement providing for jurisdiction in England and Wales. Consequently, the court does not have jurisdiction over this case.”(1)
Comment
The judgment decided on the keenly disputed and important issue of whether a jurisdiction clause in a liability insurance is to be given any effect in proceedings brought by a claimant which is not a party to the insurance contract directly against the liability insurers where such a direct action is permitted pursuant to Section 95 of the Insurance Contract Act. Some legal writers have suggested that the injured party’s right to a direct action is provided for by law and therefore this right cannot be influenced by conditions, including jurisdiction clauses, which have been agreed between the insured and the insurer, as this would be contrary to the principle of privity of contract.
Conversely, other legal writers maintain that an injured party pursuant to Section 95 of the Insurance Contract Act “steps into the shoes of the insured” and therefore the injured party cannot sue the insurer before a venue that is contrary to a jurisdiction clause in the insurance contract. The Maritime and Commercial Court has followed this latter interpretation. The court also apparently assumed that Section 95 of the Danish Insurance Contract was applicable to the claim brought in the international case heard. It is not clear under Danish law whether Section 95 should apply in international cases.
Source: Birch Windahl
Источник: http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/direct-action-against-pi-insurers-unable-to-proceed-due-to-jurisdiction-clause/