FRANCE Law and Practice Contributed by: Emmanuèle Lutfalla and Louis Fer, Signature Litigation AARPI
where the risks and parties are international. The real- ity is that the extent of negotiation depends signifi- cantly on the size and sophistication of the insured. Large corporate insureds, particularly in international programmes, will generally have greater bargaining power, with brokers and legal advisers often involved in negotiating the wording. For SMEs, the applica- ble law is more likely to reflect the insurer’s standard policy wording. French mandatory rules may still apply regardless of the law chosen, particularly where the risk is closely connected with France. 2.2 Jurisdiction and Forum Selection Jurisdiction clauses in insurance contracts are subject to specific rules under both French domestic law and EU law. Under the Brussels I bis Regulation, jurisdic- tion clauses in insurance matters are only enforceable under limited circumstances, notably after the dispute has arisen, or where the policyholder is the one invok- ing the clause. This protective regime does not apply, however, to large risks, where jurisdiction clauses are generally upheld and given full effect. Under French domestic law, jurisdiction clauses in commercial insurance contracts between profes- sionals are generally valid. The key issue is therefore often not whether a clause exists, but whether it has been properly incorporated into the relevant policy and whether it is consistent with the structure of the insurance programme. 2.3 Cross-Border Disputes and Conflicts Issues In cross-border insurance disputes, jurisdiction and choice of law are mainly governed by European rules, in particular the Brussels I bis and Rome I Regulations, together with the specific rules applying to insurance contracts. The first practical question is usually where proceedings should be brought. This can be difficult where the policy contains a jurisdiction clause, as the rules protecting policyholders may limit its effect. Choice of law raises similar issues. Even where the parties have expressly chosen a governing law, man- datory rules of another country may still apply, particu- larly where the insured risk has a strong connection
with that country. As a result, the same policy wording may potentially be interpreted differently depending on the court hearing the dispute. The most difficult cases are often those involving international insurance programmes. A master policy, local policies, fronting arrangements and reinsurance contracts may each be subject to different laws and jurisdiction clauses. This can result in parallel pro- ceedings or, at the very least, lengthy disputes over which court has jurisdiction to hear the case. 2.4 Anti-Suit Injunctions French courts generally give effect to valid and appli- cable exclusive jurisdiction and arbitration clauses, particularly in international commercial disputes. Where a dispute falls within the scope of an arbitra- tion agreement, French courts are generally reluctant to interfere with the arbitral process and will normally decline jurisdiction, subject to the limited circum- stances provided by French arbitration law. The position is particularly strong in favour of arbi- tration. French courts have traditionally adopted a pro-arbitration approach, and the existence of paral- lel proceedings before a foreign court will not nec- essarily prevent an arbitration seated in France from proceeding. 2.5 AI-Related Dispute Resolution and Jurisdiction This is still very much an emerging area in France, and there is no significant body of case law specifically addressing jurisdiction and choice of law in insurance disputes involving AI systems. That said, courts are increasingly likely to have to deal with the fact that AI systems rarely fit neatly within a single jurisdiction. Liability may arise from the devel- oper, the operator or the user, while the system itself may rely on data, infrastructure and suppliers located in several countries, making both jurisdiction and applicable law more difficult to determine. In Europe, the existing framework remains the starting point, but it was not designed specifically for AI-relat- ed disputes. Courts are therefore likely to focus on the location of the relevant conduct, the place where the
105 I NSURANCE L I T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook