EUPillar K.R. v. Spranco-Matic BVBA; Spranco-Matic BVBA v. Mr. Van Logtestijn (bankruptcy administrator) and Aegon Schadeverzekering NV

Summary

In the main proceedings, the jurisdiction of the Belgian court is not contested. The second defendant in the third party proceedings on guarantee contests the jurisdiction. The second defendant alleges that the insurance contract between her and the first defendant, the insured, provides for the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts. However, the court notes that the insurance policy submitted to it does not contain such a choice of court clause. Both defendants are domiciled or seated in the EU (in The Netherlands) so that the court must determine its jurisdiction according to the Brussels I Regulation. The first defendant in the third party proceedings on guarantee failed to enter an appearance. The Court examines its jurisdiction of its own motion pursuant to Art. 26(1) Brussels I Regulation. The Court accepts its jurisdiction on the basis of Art. 6(2) Brussels I Regulation, which provides that a person domiciled in a Member State may also be sued as a third party in an action on a warranty or guarantee or in any other third party proceedings, in the court seised of the original proceedings, unless these were instituted solely with the object of removing him from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in his case. The court establishes its jurisdiction as regards the second defendant on the basis of that same article, but also on the basis of Art. 11(1) (“In respect of liability insurance, the insurer may also, if the law of the court permits it, be joined in proceedings which the injured party has brought against the insured.”). Furthermore, Art. 11(2) stipulates that Articles 8, 9 and 10 shall apply to actions brought by the injured party directly against the insurer, where such direct actions are permitted. Belgian law allows such direct actions (cf. Art. 86 Wet op de Landverzekeringsovereenkomsten – Act of 25 June 1992 on terrestrial insurance agreements), so that the victim (the defendant in the main proceedings) is allowed to direct a claim against the insurer, established in a Member State, in the place of its domicile, also in a Member State (i.e. Turnhout, Belgium). Short critique: THe court correctly applies Brussels I.