Wikborg Rein, a Norwegian law firm
, said Norway's Supreme Court has closed a door to claimants attempting to act against foreign shipowners insuring themselves in Norway.
, a partner in Wikborg Rein
's Oslo office, said, "A
Mexican insurance company
has unsuccessfully brought a claim in Norway
against a major Russian shipowner
. The claimant tried to sue the Russian
company in Norway because
it had its P&I cover with Oslo-based Skuld.
The claim was based on Section 32 of the Civil Procedure Act, which
states that a party domiciled outside Norway can be sued in Norway if it
has an asset in the country. The Mexicans argued that the shipowner's
membership in Skuld represented
a capital asset in itself, as Skuld is a
mutual insurance company
owned by its members. They would have liked to
act against the Russians in a Norwegian court, rather than in Russia,
but the Supreme Court rejected
the forum shopping. It held that an
insurance agreement with
a Norwegian mutual insurance company did not in
itself constitute a sufficient connection with Norway. It also held that
the claimant's allegation that Skuld was jointly liable with the
shipowner did not constitute a sufficient connection with Norway."
A valid unpaid claim under an insurance agreement is an asset which is
relevant under Section 32. Claims for return of premium or similar
claims may also constitute an asset. However, Section 32 cannot apply to
parties domiciled in a country which is party to the Lugano Convention.
Therefore, Section 32 is not applicable to parties domiciled in the
European Union or the European Free Trade Association member states. And
in this case, the Supreme Court has also ruled that an insurance
agreement with a Norwegian mutual insurance company did not in itself
constitute a sufficient connection with Norway.
"Shipowners placing their P&I cover with Norway's two major P&I clubs
can sleep a little easier," says Faerden. "Claimants will have to look
elsewhere to act against them."