LG Aachen; 2019-12-19; 9 O 99/16
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGAC:2019:1219.9O99.16.00
Date: 2019-12-19
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82019DE1219(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
Two spouses, a US American and his German spouse, both civil servants with NATO domiciled in Geilenkirchen (hereinafter the ‘plaintiffs’) filed an action against an insurance company domiciled in France (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’) and the entity performing the insurance agreements domiciled in Belgium (hereinafter ‘defendant 2’) seeking compensation for expenses for the treatment of their son.
Per an email, the plaintiffs were promised to be refunded all expenses incurred during the medical treatment of their handicapped son in the USA. However, they received only a part thereof.
The Landgericht Aachen (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) hold both international and local jurisdiction under Article 1(1) and Article 11(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). The applicability of these provisions was not contrary to Article 1(2)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) as the respective matter concerned a claim arising from private insurance.
Despite the fact that the insurance agreement provided for the applicability of the French law, French law could not be applied due to the breach of Article 7(3) of the Rome I Regulation (2). In this case, group insurance was made for another's account and the place of the risk obligation was there where the insured party had its registered headquarters upon the execution of the agreement. As the headquarters of NATO were located in Belgium, Belgian law was applicable.
From the expert opinion, it follows that defendant 1 was a party to the insurance agreement and could therefore be sued. This, however, did not hold true with regard to defendant 2.
The question raised by the parties as to whether the medical treatment and the ensuing expenses had been necessary could be put aside as the insurance agreement did not foresee any requirement regarding the necessity of the medical treatment.
The Court of First Instance ordered defendant 1 to pay to the plaintiffs USD 108_965.50 plus interest and dismissed the action as for the rest.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).