Jurisdiction and Choice of Law (DACH)

Purpose

In cross-border or standard insurance contracts, the clause specifies where proceedings may be brought and which law applies to the contract. Because policyholders are typically the weaker contracting party, all three jurisdictions apply mandatory protective rules that restrict or exclude a free choice of forum or law to their detriment.

Effect and limits

Consumers, and often policyholders generally, cannot as a rule effectively waive the statutory jurisdiction at their own place of residence; agreements to that effect are permissible only after a specific dispute has arisen. Conversely, claims brought by the insurer against the policyholder are usually mandatorily assigned to the court at the policyholder’s residence, so the clause largely has declaratory effect, restating the statutory position.

Negotiation and practice

For internationally active corporate clients and reinsurance programmes, the choice of law is nonetheless actively negotiated, for example to select a neutral forum experienced in such disputes for all contracting parties. In pure retail contracts, by contrast, the room for negotiation is effectively nil because of the mandatory protective rules.

Jurisdictional comparison

Switzerland protects consumers under Articles 32 and 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure through a non-waivable jurisdiction at their own residence or the counterparty’s place of business. Germany provides an additional mandatory jurisdiction at the policyholder’s residence under Section 215 VVG, which is even exclusive for claims brought against the policyholder. Austria has no insurance-contract-specific rule; the general rules of jurisdiction under the Jurisdiktionsnorm apply, supplemented by EU consumer-protection rules under the Brussels Ia Regulation.