A brief guide to mandatory insurance for yachts

Another summer begins, and Spain with her islands and 6,000 km of coast on both the Mediterranean and Atlantic, attracts literally thousands and thousands of recreational and sporting yachts from all over the world. So it would seem to us that this is a good moment to remind all concerned, and particularly owners of such vessels, of the 10 point guideline regarding mandatory insurance cover as a matter of Spanish law:

 1.- Applicable law:

 Royal Decree 607/1999 approving the Regulation of Mandatory Civil Liability Insurance for recreational or sporting vessels and subsidiarily (ie to fill any gaps in the Royal Decree), Law 50/1980 governing the Contract of Insurance.

2.- Scope:

 All motor propelled floating craft designed for recreational and sporting navigation, including jet skis.  This law will also apply to those floating vessels that, though they lack any motor propulsion, are over 6m in length.

 3.- Object:

 The mandatory insurance is intended to cover the owner’s, owner’s skippers and water and jet skier’s civil liability arising from the navigation of recreational and sporting craft in Spanish territorial waters for both physical damage and personal injury to third parties and port and marine installations.

 4.- Applies to Foreign yachts?

Yes – when sailing in Spanish territorial and interior waters with a point of entry or departure from a Spanish port, the owner must hold civil liability cover in accordance with Spanish law as set out above.

 5.- Risks covered:

  • Third party death and personal injury
  • Damage to third party property
  • Third party economic losses arising from death, personal injury or physical damage
  • Contact and/or collision damage to other vessels
  • Save agreement otherwise, defense legal costs cover

6.- Exclusions:

  • Own losses
  • Death or personal injury to paying passengers
  • Death or personal injury to employees and any other professional subcontractors, including the skipper
  • Damages caused by the yacht etc during repairs, drydock, tow or carriage by land
  • Damage to personal belongings on board
  • Personal injury or physical damage caused as a result of knowingly boarding a yacht etc that is navigated or skippered by any person without a licence
  • Damage caused to the yacht or towed craft during salvage and rescue at sea
  • Personal injury caused by stolen yachts
  • Payment of and failure to pay fines and penalties
  • Damages caused during regattas, sea trials, or competitions of any kind, including challenges or training exercises

7.- Limits:

 € 120,202 – personal injury per victim with a maximum limit of €240,404

€ 96,161 – physical damage per incident

8.- Increase cover?

 Yes – Spanish law fixes only the minimum cover for civil liability.

9.- Sailing without insurance:

 This is categorized by the Spanish Law of Ports of the State and Merchant Marine as a “serious breach” and carries with it a fine of up to € 120,000.

And

 10.- Anything else?

 Yes, Law 50/1980 governing the Contract of Insurance applies subsidiarily and as a matter of general insurance law, a foreign underwriter should be aware of the following two issues:

  • A third party enjoys a right of direct action against the civil liability marine insurer, and
  • Where the insurer delays beyond a two-year period in payment to their insured, up to a 20% penalty interest can apply to that late payment.

And with that, all that is left to say is Bon Voyage!

Author: David Diez Ramos (Partner)

Email: ddr@rogersco.es 

© ROGERS ABOGADOS SLP – December 2020

The obligation of the reassured to mitigate damages under reinsurance contract

There is no doubt that the contract of reinsurance, in its various forms, is a crucial contract allowing insurers to share the risk and without which the insurance industry simply could not operate. However, and despite this clear significance of the contract of reinsurance, there are very few Spanish judgments that analyse and/or assess the scope of the obligations assumed by the parties under this type of contract.

But this absence of jurisprudence is not accidental. Disputes between insurers and reinsurers are normally resolved through commercial channels, or by specialized arbitrations or are referred to other foreign jurisdictions with a long and tested history resolving insurance disputes and so in practice, very few disputes end up in the Spanish courts.

Furthermore, in Spain the reality is that there is very little legislative regulation of contracts of reinsurance – only 3 articles in the Law of Insurance Contracts 50/1980 refer specifically to the contract of reinsurance, which means that it is important for the gaps to be filed by caselaw as and where possible.

This is precisely the contextual background to the Judgment of the Appeal Court of Madrid of 3rd November 2017 – and even though this is a judgement of 3 years ago, it was recently ruled final and unappealable by the Supreme Court on the 28th October 2020 – when the highest court in Spain firmly rejected the appellants attempt to overturn said judgment.

By way of introduction, the case involved the sinking of a Galician fishing vessel back in 2004 off the coast of Galicia and resulted in the tragic death of the owner/skipper and entire crew. Said fishing vessel was insured for civil liability (including employer’s liability) with a Spanish insurer which in turn, had fully reinsured the risk in the Dutch market.

As a result of this casualty, and though the insurer attempted to settle the claims amicably, the relatives of the deceased fishermen issued court proceedings against the owner in the Labour Courts of Vigo, and in July 2006 the estate of the owner was ordered by that court to pay a total of approx. € 416,000 damages to the families of the deceased crew. Following an Appeal, this judgment was then upheld in its entirety by the Superior Court of Justice of Galicia in June 2010 – and the estate of the owner was ordered to pay a further approx. € 600,000 for the accrued interest and costs.

After paying the judgement, the estate of the owner looked to their insurer to reimburse them the compensation they were ordered to pay to the families, but the insurer refused and the estate of the owner commenced proceedings against their insurer before the Commercial Courts of Pontevedra. In June 2012, the Spanish insurer was ordered to reimburse the estate of the owner in full plus an award of penalty interest pursuant to the Law of Insurance Contracts 50/1980 article 20 accruing at a rate of 20% p.a. since 2006 and costs.

This award of penalty interest increased the sum to be paid by the Spanish insurer by a further approx. € 260,000. So, the Spanish insurer finally indemnified their assured 8 years after the sinking, in the sum of approx. € 860,000.

Having exhausted the court procedures against the assured, the Spanish insurer then looked to recover their full outlay to the assured from the Dutch reinsurers – by commencing litigation in June 2013 in the Court of 1st Instance of Madrid, also claiming all their own legal costs and expenses incurred along the way in the dispute with the assured – which resulted in a total reimbursement claim of approx. € 914,000 being pursued by the Spanish insurer against the Dutch reinsurer. So what had started as a claim for € 416,000 against the assured in 2006 had turned into a claim against the reinsurer for € 914,000 in 2013. In September 2015 the Court of 1st Instance of Madrid published their judgment. In this judgment, the Dutch reinsurer was only ordered to reimburse the Spanish insurer the sum of approx. € 416,000 corresponding to the judgment award of the Labour Court of Vigo published back in 2006.

The 1st Instance Court of Madrid understood that the Spanish insurer could not “purport to pass on to the reinsurer its own negligence in the handling of the claim, since from the beginning it has argued that the injured parties were justified in all their claims, and this is explained vehemently in its claim and therefore we understand that the claim now in dispute could only be accepted in part, since the award against the estate of the owner was known to the Spanish insurer given by a judicial ruling of the Labour Court of Vigo, and knowing the right of repetition that the heirs would have against the insurer they should have handled the claim without further delay, and as such owe the amounts we understand were granted there”.

The judgment was appealed by both the Spanish insurer and the Dutch reinsurer and said appeal was resolved by the Appeal Court of Madrid by judgment (No. 462/2017) dated 3rd November 2017 and which, other than a slight adjusted increase in accrued interests, totally upheld the reasoning of the Court of 1st Instance of Madrid.

Thus, the Madrid Appeal Court commented that “considering that the resulting amount is the one that the appellant should have paid immediately, avoiding the expenses of the other two subsequent judicial actions (of the appeal before the Superior Court of Justice of Galicia and the procedure before the Commercial Court number 1 of Pontevedra)”.

This judgment was then appealed by the Spanish insurer before the Supreme Court, which, by Order of October 28, 2020, rejected any right to appeal and thereby endorsing the Judgment of the Appeal Court of Madrid of 3rd November 2017 and awarding costs against the Spanish insurer.

Regardless of the complicated and long journey through the different courts, the 1st Instance and Appeal Court of Madrid, as endorsed by the Supreme Court all confirm a fundamental principle that applies equally to the contract of reinsurance, namely, the obligation of the reinsured to act as a prudent non-reinsured and to mitigate the loss.

This case is strange on its facts, given that the Spanish insurer forced the estate of the owner to litigate and yet, in their own litigation against the reinsurer, the Spanish insurer was happy to admit that the assured had a totally legitimate claim. Presumably the Spanish insurer believed that they were entitled to exercise the right to defend the claim regardless of the merits of that defense – and on the basis, also presumably,that they could simply pass the entire financial burden to the reinsurer.

But what is remarkable about this case is that for whatever reason, the Spanish insurer assumed that there would be no accountability to the reinsurer regarding how they managed the assured’s claim – basically a belief that the contract of reinsurance was devoid of any obligation to act as a reasonable uninsured – ie the obligation to mitigate. At no time did the Spanish insurer try to explain why they believed the contract of reinsurance to be an exception to the general rule on damages.

What the judgment does make clear is that the Spanish court will not criticize an insurer for exercising their legitimate right to defend a claim brought by their assured, but that right of the insurer to control the relationship with the insured comes with the burden of accountability of the insurer to the reinsurer by way of the obligation to mitigate.

Moving forward, we may find that the circumstances of this case are exceptional in the insurance / reinsurance market, but the Judgment of the 3rd November 2017 is nonetheless welcome for showing that the right of the insurer and the protection of the reinsurer can be effectively balanced through the obligation on the insurer to act as a reasonable un-reinsured and mitigate.

Author: David Diez Ramos (Partner)

Email: ddr@rogersco.es 

New member of our team

As part of our continued commitment to offer our clients the best service, we are very pleased to announce that has joined our team. Ruben is specialized in insurance law, contractual liability and tort claims.

Rubén’s solid experience advising in the insurance sector reinforces our non-marine insurance and litigation specialization at ROGERS & CO, in this dynamic and relevant area of law intrinsic to our core domestic and international practice and recognized expertise.

Legal 500 – Rogers & Co again listed as one of the top law firms in Spain for Insurance, Shipping and Transport

For yet another year, the prestigious global editorial The Legal 500 has ranked Rogers & Co as one of the go to law firms in Spain for Insurance, Shipping and Transport.  And for the first time this year, we are delighted to announce that our partner Luis Alberto Garcia, has been listed as a Leading Individual for both Shipping and Transport.

Thank you to all our clients and friends for your continued support.  We would not be here without you!

Our team is your team!

The suspension of time limits in Spain of road cargo claims during the state of alarm

On the 14th March 2020, the Spanish legislature published Royal Decree 463/2020 declaring a state of alarm throughout Spain as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Amongst the exceptional measures approved by this new law, was the suspension of time limits for all claims.

What this means is that time limits for any type of claim in Spain have been frozen from the 14th March 2020 until the state of alarm ceases to be in force (which will take place next 24th May, unless a new extension is approved by the Spanish Parliament).

Once the state of alarm has been lifted, the time limits will be revived for the equivalent time that was left to run prior to the 14th March. This revival of the time limit is not a rerun of the full-time limit period. Further, once the time limits have been revived, they will be governed by the same rules that applied prior to the state of alarm.

So, how does this suspension impact on cargo claims arising from carriage by road?

The legal framework for these claims in Spain is the CMR Convention for international carriage and Law 15/2009 for the Contract of Carriage of Goods by Road for domestic haulage.

In general terms, the rules governing the time limits for claims under international and domestic rules are very similar. Consequently, the suspension will affect claims under both sets of rules in the same way.

That said, and in relation to how the suspension impacts on these claims, there are 4 different scenarios to consider:

(1) Claims where the time limit expires during the state of alarm:

For example, a claim that time barred on the 18th March 2020 (4 days after the declaration of the state of alarm). According to the rules in place at this time, once the state of alarm is officially lifted, the claimant will have only 4 days from the day after the lifting of the state of alarm to protect the time limit.

(2) Claims where the time limit expires after the state of alarm has been lifted:

Some believe that the suspension does not apply to these claims, given that they are of the view that the suspension was intended as an exceptional measure to only protect those time limits that expired during the state of alarm.

However, most legal commentators focus on the fact that the law does not distinguish between time limits or any potentially differing scenarios. Accordingly, the view here is that once the suspension is lifted, the new time left for protecting the claim will include the time elapsed from 14th March to the date the state of alarm was officially lifted.

Again, by way of example, a claim that expires on the 15th June 2020 and where the state of alarm is lifted, say on the 1st of June, according to the minority view, the time limit does not change. It expires on the 15th June. Taking the majority view, the time limit expires on the 3rd September 2020, counting the 80 days of suspension running from the 14th March to the 1st June 2020.

(3) New claims arising during the state of alarm:

Here the situation appears to be clear, any time limit is only triggered once the state of alarm has been officially lifted.

(4) Rejection of claims during the state of alarm:

The revival of the time limit as a result of the rejection of the claim by the carrier, as established by the CMR Convention and domestic law, will only take effect the day after the lifting of the state of alarm, and not from the date that the rejection is received by cargo interests.

In summary:

The freezing of the time limits for claims during the state of alarm in Spain applies to those claims arising from the carriage of goods. So, each claim should be properly reviewed regarding time limits and strategy. It should also be noted that though some claims may now be time barred in other jurisdictions, the suspension due to the state of alarm in Spain may allow cargo interests to pursue those claims in Spain. And equally significant for both carriers and cargo is that at this time, a rejection is not a rejection until the state of alarm is lifted, so that claimants have more time to protect the time limit prior to the lifting of the state of alarm.

Author: Luis Alberto García  (Partner)

Email: lag@rogersco.es