EUPillar Barbara Williams v Mapfre Emprass Compania De Seguros Y Reaseguros SA [2015] WL 1839026

Summary

The claimant, Ms Williams, suffered personal injury which was caused by an incident which occurred in a Spanish hotel. The proceedings were commenced against the Spanish insurers in England under Articles 9 and 11 of Brussels. The Spanish law was applicable. The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the English court, submitting that the claimants had no valid cause of action against the insurer under Spanish law. It should be noted that the insurance policy contained the following clause: “Policy coverage shall only include claims submitted within Spanish jurisdiction for events that have taken place in Spain leading to liability or other obligations imposed in accordance with legal provisions in force within the territory of Spain.” The English judge held that the claimant has no valid claim in this jurisdiction. The judgment was entered for the defendants. In this context, HHJ Halbert held: “31 Although this clause undoubtedly has effects on the jurisdiction, it is not essentially a jurisdiction clause, it is a territorial limit on the indemnity under the policy. Had the hotel company had a presence in England and Wales sufficient to give the English courts jurisdiction in personam over the hotel so that Mrs Williams could have brought an action in tort in the English courts against the Hotel, the Hotel would have had no indemnity under this policy. […] 33 In the Odenbreit case, the ECJ ruled that the only condition to which Article 11(2) is subject is that it applies only where the direct action is permitted under national law. 34 It follows that, if the clause relied on by the Insurance Company in this case is valid at national law, i.e. Spanish law, it is not overridden by EU law. I have already found that the clause is valid at Spanish law and I have done so on the basis that there are three reported cases in Spain to that effect. 35 If the EU had wished to impose the kind of regime on direct actions for which those acting for Mrs Williams contend, it could have done so as it did in the case of motor insurance where Member States are required “ to ensure that all compulsory policies of insurance against civil liability arising out of the use of vehicles cover on the basis of a single premium and during the whole term of the contract, the entire territory of the community ” ( Directive 2009 /103/EC article 14 ). There is no corresponding EU provision in relation to policies covering accidents in hotel premises. 37 In my view the clause is valid and there is no cause of action available to this Claimant against these Defendants in this country.” [31, 33-35 and 37]