## Facts

- Universal General Insurance Company (UGIC), a Canadian insurer, obtained reinsurance through a French broker for certain risks.
- Group Josi Reinsurance Company SA (Group Josi), a Belgian reinsurer, entered into a reinsurance treaty with UGIC; Group Josi had no French branch or establishment.
- A payment dispute arose under the reinsurance contract.
- UGIC sued Group Josi in France seeking amounts allegedly due.
- Group Josi challenged French jurisdiction, asserting that the Brussels Convention required suit at its domicile (Belgium).
- UGIC argued the Brussels Convention did not apply because UGIC was domiciled in a non-Contracting State, so French domestic rules should govern jurisdiction.
- The Versailles Court of Appeal stayed proceedings and sought a preliminary ruling on the Brussels Convention’s scope and the insurance-specific jurisdiction provisions.

## Issues

1. Whether Title II of the Brussels Convention applies when the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting State but the plaintiff is domiciled in a non-Contracting State.
2. Whether the Convention’s special jurisdiction rules “in matters relating to insurance” (Articles 7–12a) apply to disputes between a reinsurer and a reinsured under a reinsurance contract between professional parties.

## Decision

- The court held that Title II of the Brussels Convention generally applies whenever the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting State, even if the plaintiff is domiciled in a non-Contracting State, absent an express Convention provision making the plaintiff’s domicile determinative.
- The court held that Articles 7–12a (insurance jurisdiction) do not apply to disputes between professional parties arising from a reinsurance contract.
- The court stated that Articles 7–12a may apply where a private individual insured, in a weaker position, brings a direct action against a reinsurer to enforce rights connected to insurance coverage.
- The matter was returned to the referring court to apply these interpretations to the jurisdictional dispute.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Brussels Convention, the defendant’s domicile in a Contracting State generally triggers application of Title II jurisdictional rules, regardless of the plaintiff’s domicile, except where the Convention expressly conditions jurisdiction on the plaintiff’s domicile in a Contracting State.
- The Convention’s insurance-specific jurisdiction rules are protective and are construed in light of their purpose to protect the weaker party; they are not interpreted broadly to cover relationships lacking that inequality.
- Professional reinsurance disputes (reinsured versus reinsurer) fall outside Articles 7–12a because the protective rationale is ordinarily absent where both parties are commercial actors.
- A reinsurer may still be subject to the insurance section when sued directly by a private insured whose position justifies the Convention’s protective jurisdictional regime.

## Conclusion

The court clarified that the Brussels Convention’s general jurisdiction framework applies in “mixed” cases where the defendant is domiciled in a Contracting State even if the plaintiff is not, and it confined the Convention’s special insurance-jurisdiction protections largely to disputes involving weaker parties rather than professional reinsurance litigation.


Group Josi Reinsurance Co. SA v. Universal Gen. Ins. Co., Case C-412/98, 2000 E.C.R. I-5925 (C.J.E.U. 2000)