GEOFF HILL v GENERALI BIZTOSITÓ ZRT

Under the Recast Regulation, an insured person may sue an insurer in the courts of the insured person’s domicile. Where English law keeps the cause of action vested in the insured, a subrogated claim for insured losses may be brought in the same action as the insured person’s claim for uninsured losses. Weaker-party status is determined by legal category, not by examining the parties’ actual financial strength. The construction should promote predictability, sound administration of justice, and the avoidance of parallel proceedings and irreconcilable judgments. An insurer taking an assignment cannot itself rely on the weaker-party rules, but may in an appropriate case join proceedings already brought by the insured.

The claimant, domiciled in England, was involved in a collision in Germany with a vehicle insured by the Hungarian defendant. He claimed in England for his uninsured excess and for repair costs paid by his motor insurer, Admiral, whose subrogated claim was brought in the claimant’s name.

The County Court at Telford held that it had no jurisdiction over the subrogated claim and stayed it, also staying the uninsured-loss claim pending appeal. The issue was whether the subrogated claim was a claim by the insured for the purposes of Article 11(1)(b) of the Recast Regulation, or a claim by the insurer which could not use the insured’s domicile as a jurisdictional basis.

1. Appeal allowed. The High Court had jurisdiction over the claimant’s subrogated claim.
2. The interpretation of the Recast Regulation was a question of law. The appellate court was not bound by the lower judge’s evaluative assessment of competing policy considerations.
3. Under English law, the claimant remained solely entitled to sue for the loss arising from damage to his car despite payment by Admiral. Subrogation required him to account to Admiral for sums recovered, but did not transfer the cause of action. English law also required the uninsured and subrogated claims to be brought in a single action.
4. Article 11(1)(b) therefore entitled the claimant to sue the defendant in England for both insured and uninsured losses. Policyholders, insured persons and beneficiaries are treated as weaker parties by legal category, whereas insurers and other insurance professionals are not. Article 11(1)(b), as a derogation from the defendant-domicile rule, must be interpreted strictly.
5. The policy of avoiding multiple proceedings and irreconcilable judgments supported allowing the combined claim. An insurer taking an assignment could not rely on the weaker-party rules, but might join an existing claim under Article 8(2).
6. The court left undecided whether a subrogated claim could be brought in the insured’s domicile where there was no associated uninsured claim.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): appeal from the County Court at Telford. The county court had held at [44] that the subrogated claim should be treated as a claim by the indirectly injured party and had stayed it for want of jurisdiction. The High Court allowed the appeal.