SWITZERLAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Jodok Wicki, Daniel Zemp, Fabienne von Moos and Doruntina Dembogaj, CMS von Erlach Partners Ltd
2.3 Cross-Border Disputes and Conflicts Issues Lugano Convention Mechanisms Within the Lugano framework, conflicts of jurisdiction are addressed through the lis pendens rule (Article 27), which requires a court subsequently seized to stay proceedings until the court first seized has established jurisdiction. Related actions may also be stayed, or the court may decline jurisdiction under certain cir- cumstances, under Article 28. These mechanisms generally function well between Switzerland and other Choice of law follows the private international laws rules at the place of the forum. With a Swiss place of jurisdiction or arbitration, the PILA will govern the choice of law, allowing for commercial parties’ far- reaching autonomy. Difficulties may arise in inter- national insurance programmes with different laws applicable to local policies and master policies, or excess policies following form but with different laws applicable to the primary policy, or losses spreading to several policy years with policies subject to differ- ent laws. In such cases courts will carefully analyse the specific case and seek the appropriate solution for that case. Practical Challenges Lugano Convention states. Choice of Law Conflicts The most significant practical challenges include ser- vice of proceedings abroad (governed, where appli- cable, by the Hague Service Convention) and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, which is straightforward within Lugano Convention states but otherwise requires consideration of the applicable national rules, bilateral treaties or interna- tional conventions, including the relevant Hague Con- vention framework. In multi-layer or excess insurance programmes, different layers may be subject to dif- ferent governing laws and fora, requiring careful co- ordination to avoid inconsistent outcomes. 2.4 Anti-Suit Injunctions No Anti-Suit or Anti-Arbitration Injunctions Under Swiss Law Swiss courts, as civil law courts, do not issue anti- suit injunctions in the common law sense. There is no general procedural mechanism under Swiss law cor-
responding to the common law anti-suit injunction, by which a court orders a party to refrain from commenc- ing or continuing proceedings before a foreign court. By the same principle, Swiss courts generally do not grant anti-arbitration relief. In the same vein, the arbi- tral tribunal decides on its own jurisdiction under the competence-competence principle (Article 186, PILA). Both reflect the fundamental civil law approach and international arbitration principle that each court or arbitral tribunal determines its own jurisdiction inde- pendently. Protection and Practical Implications Where an exclusive arbitration clause is in place, Swiss courts will decline jurisdiction, subject to the excep- tions in Article 7 of the PILA. Arbitral tribunals seated in Switzerland have broad powers to grant interim relief and may, depending on the circumstances, consider measures aimed at preventing parallel proceedings, although anti-suit relief remains rare and its availability is not clearly established under Swiss law. The absence of anti-suit relief is particularly relevant in reinsurance disputes, where parties may be tempted to initiate proceedings in multiple jurisdictions. Swiss market participants typically address this risk through carefully drafted exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration clauses and rely on the lis pendens rule of the Luga- no Convention or contractual remedies for breach of forum agreements, rather than seeking injunctive relief against foreign proceedings. 2.5 AI-Related Dispute Resolution and Jurisdiction No AI-Specific Rules Swiss law does not currently contain AI-specific rules on jurisdiction or choice of law for disputes arising from AI systems. Courts therefore apply the general provisions of the Lugano Convention and the PILA. Applicable Framework and Connecting Factors Relevant connecting factors may include where the AI system is operated, the location of the data inputs, the place where the damage manifests, and the domicile of the developer or deployer. Jurisdiction in tort mat- ters follows Article 129 of the PILA; the applicable law
229 I NSURANCE L I T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook