EUPillar BBAA v. E.M. and SA A.B. - 09/29/A - Civ. Liège, 27 April 2010

Summary

On 31 July 1999, Mr. M. was the victim in a car accident while he was on holiday in Italy. He blames the accident on Mr. C.D., who was purportedly insured by the company C.U.I. Once returned to Belgium, Mr. M. made contact with SA C.G.U. Belgium, the Belgian representative of the Italian insurer. The SA C.G.U. was later acquired by W. and represented in court by the SA A.B. (the second defendant). The appellant, BBAA, is the Belgian Bureau of Automobile Insurers. The BBAA contacted C.G.U. because it was taking long to obtain the necessary confirmation from C.U.I. (through the intermediary of C.G.U.) that Mr. C.D. was effectively covered by his car insurance. After an attempt to settle the claim amicably with the insurer, including an amicable medical examination covered by W., Mr. M. finally sued W. before the Police Court of Liège for damages. (The proceedings were continued by A.B. and W. was cleared.) The BBAA voluntarily joined the proceedings and stated it was the only one who should be condemned. The Police Court then ordered BBAA to pay 38,383.10 EUR in damages to Mr. M. The BBAA appealed because it said its voluntarily joinder was the result of a mistake made by its counsel – which the lawyer admitted. Mr. M. lodges a counter-appeal against A.B. to obtain his damages. On appeal, the Court considers that by virtue of Art. 12 of the Belgian Law of 21 November 1989, every insurance undertaking shall appoint a claims representative in each member state of the European Economic Area. The claims representative shall have the power to settle the claims on behalf and for the account of the insurance undertaking, including the payment of compensation. These powers are limited, however, to the amicable phase of dispute settlement. If the negotiations fail, the victim should sue the foreign insurance company and not its representative. Since the entry into force of the Brussels I Regulation, the beneficiary is even allowed to bring proceedings before the courts for the place where he is domiciled. The applicable law is the law of the State where the accident occurred (cf. Art. 3 Hague Traffic Accidents Convention). Mr. M. should have sued the Italian insurer, either in Italy (before the Brussels I Regulation entered into force) or in Belgium (after its entry into force). Short Critique: the Court correctly applies Brussels I.