The Arbitration Board's decision confirms the previous legal position, according to which section 95(2) of the Danish Insurance Contracts Act does not constitute a legal basis for deviating from the general rules on venue, that arbitration proceedings require that the parties have entered into an agreement to that effect, that the adcitant has the burden of proof, and that there is a (certain) stricter requirement for the clarity and adoption of arbitration agreements.

A procedural notification of a potential tortfeasor to arbitration proceedings is thus still not in itself sufficient for the notified party to be deemed to have tacitly accepted arbitration, and any agreement or acceptance of arbitration with a potential tortfeasor is in any case of no significance in relation to a claim for subrogation under section 95(2) of the Danish Insurance Contracts Act.

The ruling also confirms that an injured party who is subrogated to the insured's claim against the insurance company pursuant to section 95(2) of the Danish Insurance Contracts Act cannot obtain a better right than the insured, among other things with the effect that the injured party must respect the insurance contract between the insured and the insurance company, including in relation to venue.

The insurance company was represented by attorney Michael Kjær Lauritsen, attorney Jan Presfeldt and assistant attorney Ida Juul Jensen.

We are of course available if you have any questions about the order.