1. The background for the two decisions
In December 2015 in Indonesian waters, Thorco Cloud and Stolt Commitment collided. Thorco Cloud sank, and six members of its crew were lost. These casualties resulted in two important Supreme Court decisions: HR-2018-869 (Stolt I) and HR-2020-1328 (Stolt II). The issue concerned jurisdiction of Norwegian courts and choice of law, caused by a direct action suit against the insurers of Stolt Commitment for the loss suffered, combined with a claim for damages against the insured at the same venue.(1) The translations from the two decisions in this article are primarily from translations provided by the Supreme Court - annotated, "for information purposes only".
The decisions are based upon the 2007 Lugano Convention, which is made part of Norwegian law.(2) Cf. Civil Procedure Act of June 17 2005 No. 90 Section 48. The Lugano Convention of 2007 is lex specialis in conflict with national rules.(3) Rt. 2012 p. 1951 paragraph 33. The previous convention (Lugano 1988) - also adopted as Norwegian law - was at the points of interest in our context similar to the present rules, meaning that judgments concerning Lugano 1988 are still relevant.(4)Stolt I paragraph 71.
In 2 below I provide a description of the parties and a survey of the somewhat complicated procedural history before giving a more detailed explanation of the arguments used by the judges. The questions on the direct action against the insurer are dealt with in 3 and 4. Whether there also is venue for the claim against the insured is the topic in 5. A summary of the decisions in Stolt I and Stolt II is given in 6 - with some information on the further litigation development. Finally, in 8, I venture some reflexions on the two decisions.