Short Reads

Correction for fairness applies in full in case of redress by insurers

Correction for fairness applies in full in case of redress by insurers

Correction for fairness applies in full in case of redress by insurers

08.10.2015 NL law

On 10 July 2015, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that in cases of recourse (regres) by insurers, the correction for fairness (billijkheidscorrectie) applies in exactly the same way as it does for the insured party (Achmea/Menzis). Insurers can thus benefit from ‘subjective circumstances’ particular to the insured party. As a result of this judgment, the Dutch Supreme Court has put a stop to a long-lasting discussion amongst Dutch legal scholars on this issue.

Background

Under Dutch law, a debtor’s obligation to pay damages is decreased by the extent that part of the blame for the damages can be apportioned to the creditor. This does not apply if – in fairness –  the majority of the blame can be attributed to one of the parties or other circumstances involved lead to a different outcome. This is referred to as the correction for fairness.

In 1997, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that this correction for fairness, in principle, also applies when insurers have a claim on the basis of recourse (Terminus/ZAO). That judgment led to a discussion between Dutch scholars on the scope of such applicability. Some argued that only ‘objective circumstances’ should be taken into account when applying the correction for fairness in cases of recourse by an insurer. Objective circumstances are those circumstances that are equal to all parties.  In their view, subjective circumstances, in other words those that are particular to the victim, should not be allowed to play a part in such cases. Other scholars argued that there is no difference between the circumstances, or that both should be taken into account equally in cases of recourse by insurers.

Case

In this case, an insurer claimed for damages caused to its insured party in an accident between motorized vehicles. In short, a bus driver applied its brakes and a motorbike crashed into the back of the bus. As a result of the accident, the young driver of the motorbike will be bound to a wheelchair for the rest of his life.  The motorbike driver’s insurer paid for all damages and filed a claim for such damages against the bus company’s insurer.

The Court of Appeal had previously ruled that the bus driver was to blame for 40% of the damages and the driver of the motorbike was responsible for the remaining 60%. It then applied a 25% correction for fairness taking into account subjective circumstances on the motorbike driver’s side, including the severity of his injuries and his young age. The bus company’s insurer thus had to pay for 65% of the damages, whilst the motorbike driver’s insurer had to account for the remaining 35%.

Before the Supreme Court, the bus company’s insurer argued that the Court of Appeal had made a mistake by taking into account such subjective circumstances because there is no legal basis for recourse in pitifulness (regres in zieligheid) . It also pointed out that insurers do not include subjective circumstances in their mathematical models used to calculate overall costs and insurance premiums. It argued that if subjective circumstances were to be included in these models, insurance premiums would rise significantly.

Contrary to the view expressed in this case by the advocate general, Mr Spier, the Supreme Court ruled that, in principle, the correction for fairness applies in exactly the same way to insurers after recourse as it applies between the insured parties. It specifically confirmed that this also includes subjective circumstances. The fact that insurers do not take these subjective circumstances into account when they calculate costs and insurance premiums, does not change that principle.

In practice, this judgment implies that insurers will have to assess whether their mathematical models used to calculate costs and insurance premiums include such subjective circumstances. If those circumstances are not included, the models may need to be adjusted accordingly. This could potentially lead to an increase in insurance premiums.

The post Correction for fairness applies in full in case of redress by insurers is a post of Stibbeblog.nl

Team

Related news

11.04.2019 NL law
Double roles in attributing knowledge

Short Reads - The knowledge of a person who in fact runs a company can be attributed to the company if the sole director and shareholder is a 'straw man', the Supreme Court confirmed in a judgment of 29 March 2019. The rules by the Supreme Court are not revolutionary or even new. But circumstances essential for the attribution of knowledge are ignored. The double role played by the 'man in charge' raises questions about how to apply the rules as identified by the Supreme Court to the facts

Read more

28.03.2019 NL law
European Parliament votes in favour of representative actions for consumers

Short Reads - On 26 March 2019 the European Parliament approved an amended version of the European Commission's proposal for a Directive on representative actions for the protection of collective interests of consumers, following a debate on 25 March 2019. The Directive will become law once the Council and the European Parliament reach an agreement on the European Commission's proposal. The Council has not yet been able to adopt a position on the Directive, meaning that the Directive will most likely be considered again after the ­­­European elections in May 2019 by a different European Parliament

Read more

10.04.2019 NL law
Damage due to a defective driveway and the Dutch twenty year limitation period: When does limitation start in case of a continuous event that causes damage?

Short Reads - On 22 March 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:412) that the strict liability for buildings (opstalaansprakelijkheid) is not linked to a specific damaging act but to a damaging condition, as referred to in section 6:174 DCC. Therefore, there is no reason to regard a damaging act as an 'event that caused damage' as referred to in section 3:310 DCC concerning the limitation period for claims for damages.

Read more

04.04.2019 NL law
European Court of Justice: actio pauliana is covered by jurisdiction rule of forum of contract. A judgment with foreseeable consequences?

Short Reads - Imagine that a debtor voluntarily concludes a transaction with a third party where he knows (or should know) that it hinders the creditor's possibilities of collecting the debt. In civil law countries, a creditor can invoke the nullification of that legal act by means of a so-called actio pauliana. This raises the question of which court has jurisdiction in the case of an international dispute, regarding an actio pauliana, that is instituted by a creditor against a third party?

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring