DENMARK Law and Practice Contributed by: Josefine Movin Østergaard and Johannes Hedegaard, Bruun & Hjejle
3. Arbitration in Insurance Disputes 3.1 Recognition of Arbitration Clauses Danish courts recognise and enforce arbitration agreements, including those contained in commer- cial contracts of insurance and reinsurance. A lawsuit concerning disputes that, by agreement between the parties, are to be settled by arbitration shall, upon request, be dismissed by the courts, unless the arbi- tration agreement is invalid or the arbitration proceed- ings cannot be conducted for other reasons, cf. Sec- tion 8 (1), cf. Section 4 of the Danish Arbitration Act ( Voldgiftsloven ). 3.2 Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Denmark is a party to the Convention on the Recogni- tion and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the “New York Convention”), having ratified it in 1972. Foreign arbitral awards are generally recognised and enforced in Denmark. The enforcement process is governed by Section 38 of the Danish Arbitration Act ( voldgiftsloven ), which is substantively aligned with Article 35 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Interna- tional Commercial Arbitration 1985 (the “UNCITRAL Model Law”). As a rule, foreign arbitral awards can be enforced in Denmark under Article 478 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act (retsplejeloven). Danish courts may refuse recognition or enforcement only on the limited grounds in Section 39 of the Danish Arbitration Act, reflecting Article 36 of the UNCITRAL Model Law and Article V of the New York Conven- tion. Grounds include lack of proper notice of arbitra- tor appointment or proceedings, inability to present one’s case, or the award addressing disputes or mat- ters outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. 3.3 Practical Use of Arbitration in Insurance Matters In Denmark, it is fairly common for particularly large- scale insurance matters to be resolved through arbi- tration. Applicable Rules The main rules are set out in the Danish Arbitration Act ( Voldgiftsloven ), which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law.
established case law supporting the grant of such injunctions in Denmark. For court proceedings, Section 248 (1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act ( retsplejeloven ) provides that the court of its own motion shall examine whether the venue is correct. However, if the defendant does not raise an objection to the jurisdiction, the court is deemed to be the proper venue. A case brought before a Danish court in violation of a valid jurisdiction agreement between the parties will be dismissed pursuant to Section 248, cf. Section 245 (1), of the Danish Administration of Justice Act for jurisdiction clauses, or pursuant to Section 8 (1), cf. Section 4, of the Danish Arbitration Act ( voldgiftsloven ) for arbitration agreements. 2.5 AI-Related Dispute Resolution and Jurisdiction There is limited Danish case law addressing AI sys- tems in litigation. In a recent ruling, the Maritime and Commercial High Court ( Sø - og Handelsretten ) addressed the eviden- tiary status of AI-generated analysis. The case con- cerned a party who sought to rely on output from an AI system as the foundation for expert questions ( skønsspørgsmål ) in civil proceedings. The Court held that AI-generated output cannot automatically form the basis for such questions; the party relying on the AI output must demonstrate its reliability, methodol- ogy, and relevance to the issues in dispute. The ruling signals that Danish courts will apply critical scrutiny to AI-derived evidence and require proper validation before it can be used in legal proceedings. In a separate development, the Danish Bar Council’s Disciplinary Board ( Advokatnævnet ) fined a lawyer DKK10,000 for citing two court judgments as legal precedent in a legal claim – judgments that did not exist. The case highlights the professional responsibil- ity risks that arise when lawyers rely on AI-generated content without independent verification.
90 I NSURANCE L I T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook