Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
French Shipping Law
Andrew Tetley *
Antoine Guillemot †
CASES
207. Amlin Insurance SE v M. [R], the municipality of Cannes & CRAMA 1
International private law—jurisdiction clause—insurance—shipownerOn 24 July 2007, a vessel owned by the company Shema (“the shipowner”) struck the gangway providing access to the helipad base of the port of Cannes (“the municipality”) resulting in loss and damage to the municipality. The municipality claimed from its insurer, CRAMA (“the insurer”). On 9 October 2007, the insurer denied coverage on the ground that maritime facilities were excluded from the scope of the insurance policy. The municipality challenged the insurer.
In February 2010, the municipality brought a claim against its insurer and the shipowner before the High Court of Grasse. No claim was brought against the shipowner’s insurers, which included Amlin Insurance Corporate NV (“Amlin”) (together “the vessel insurers”). On 30 August 2010, the vessel insurers brought an action before the High Court in London for a declaration of non-liability against the municipality and its insurer, based on the “pay to be paid” clause contained in the vessel insurance policy.
The vessel insurers challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court of Grasse on the basis of the jurisdiction clause contained in the vessel insurance policy, which granted jurisdiction to the High Court in London (the “London Jurisdiction Clause”). The municipality replied that the clause was not binding on it and that the High Court of Grasse had jurisdiction as the court in the territory of which the damage occurred, in accordance with the EU Brussels Regulation.
On 30 March 2011, the municipality commenced a direct action against the vessel insurers before the High Court of Grasse (the “direct action”).
On 7 September 2011, the High Court in London ruled that the vessel insurers were not liable under their policy of insurance (the “High Court Judgment”).
The shipowner was subsequently placed into a liquidation procedure.
By judgment of 19 December 2017, the High Court of Grasse held, inter alia, that (i) the High Court Judgment was not binding on the municipality and its insurer, (ii) it had jurisdiction to hear the claim made by the municipality against the vessel insurers, and (iii) the “pay to be paid” provisions of the insurance policy were not binding on the municipality and its insurer, being contrary to public policy. The court ordered certain of the
* FCIArb, Avocat à la Cour, Solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales (Solicitor Advocate), Partner, Reed Smith LLP, Paris.
† Avocat à la Cour, Associate, Reed Smith LLP, Paris.
1. Judgment of the first civil chamber of the French Supreme Court dated 18 December 2024, No. 21-23.252.
124