DENMARK Law and Practice Contributed by: Josefine Movin Østergaard and Johannes Hedegaard, Bruun & Hjejle
permit enforcement of jurisdiction clauses in direct claim scenarios. Special rules apply to consumer agreements. A pre- dispute jurisdiction clause – or an arbitration agree- ment – is not binding on the consumer (see 1.3 Dispute Resolution Strategy and Outcomes ). A consumer domiciled in Denmark may bring proceedings before the courts of their own domicile where the insurance contract was concluded in connection with activities directed at Denmark (Articles 17 (1) and 18 (1) of the Brussels I Regulation; Section 247 (1) of the Adminis- tration of Justice Act). This protection may also apply where the insurer is domiciled outside the EU/EFTA (Articles 6 (1) and 18 (1)). 2.3 Cross-Border Disputes and Conflicts Issues Cross-border insurance disputes in Denmark are governed by a layered framework. Where a dispute involves connecting factors to other EU or EFTA countries, jurisdiction is generally determined under the Brussels I Regulation and the Lugano Conven- tion, including their protective rules for policyholders, insureds and beneficiaries. For defendants outside those regimes, jurisdiction is governed by the Danish Administration of Justice Act ( retsplejeloven ). For contractual claims, Section 242 provides that cases may be brought before the court at the place where the obligation underlying the case has been or is to be performed. For non-contractual claims, Sec- tions 243 and 246 allow Danish courts to hear claims against foreign defendants where either the wrongful act or its harmful effects occurred in Denmark. • In the Eastern High Court’s judgment of 9 January 2026 in the OW Bunker case (B-2633-17), jurisdic- tion was established over foreign indirect owners because the alleged wrongful conduct had pre- dominantly occurred in Denmark. • The Eastern High Court similarly accepted Danish jurisdiction in an insurance recourse claim con- cerning dividend tax against a US law firm, arising from advice given to a German bank (decision of 1 April 2026, BS-28783/2024 and BS-28785/2024). The Court held that Sections 246 (1) and 243 applied because the engagement concerned trans-
actions directed at Denmark and the effects of the alleged legal wrong occurred there. The Danish choice-of-law rules for insurance con- tracts are, to a certain extent, governed by Directive 2009/138/EC (“Solvency II Directive”), and through the Solvency II Directive – by Article 7 of Regulation No. 593/2008 (“Rome I Regulation”). See under 2.1 Choice of Law in Insurance Contracts . Because Denmark does not participate in the Rome II Regulation, non-contractual claims are governed by unwritten Danish choice-of-law principles. • The traditional starting point is the lex loci delicti principle, under which tort claims are governed by the law of the place where the damage occurred ( skadestedet ). • In cases of distance delicts, where the harmful act is committed in one country while the effect occurs in another, the lex loci delicti principle encompass- es both the place of conduct (more precisely, lex loci delicti commissi) and the place of effect (more precisely, lex loci damni). • In recent decades, following the Supreme Court judgment reported in UfR 1999.255 H, which emphasised the place of effect, legal scholarship predominantly emphasises the place of effect as determinative for choice of law. • For recourse claims ( regreskrav ), the general rule is that such claims are governed by the same law as the underlying claim from which the right of recourse derives – similar to Article 20 of the Rome II Regulation. This principle was recently affirmed by the Eastern High Court ( Østre Landsret ) in its ruling of 1 April 2026. Practical challenges include: distinguishing contrac- tual disputes from tort and recourse claims; deter- mining where the insured risk or damage is located; and assessing whether a jurisdiction or choice-of-law clause was validly incorporated. 2.4 Anti-Suit Injunctions Danish courts do not issue anti-suit injunctions. The concept of anti-suit relief is not part of the Danish procedural regime, and there is no statutory basis or
89 I NSURANCE L I T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook