Recourse claim after traffic accident abroad

Case no. BS-21188/2022-HJR and no. BS-21201/2022-HJR

Judgment delivered on 9 September 2025

Danish Motor Insurers’ Bureau
vs.
Krone Fleet Danmark A/S

On 6 June 2016, a road train with a tractor registered in Poland and a semi-trailer registered in Denmark collided with a passenger car registered in Germany, whereby the passenger car was damaged. The accident took place in Germany. On 13 September 2016, another road train with a Lithuanian tractor and a Danish semi-trailer collided with a passenger car registered in Spain, again damaging the passenger car. The accident took place in Spain.

The two trailers involved in the accidents had been rented from Krone Fleet Danmark A/S (Krone). 

In these cases, the German green card agency (Deutsches Büro Grüne Karte e.V.) and the Spanish green card agency (Oficina Española de Aseguradores de Automóviles), respectively, compensated the injured parties for their expenses for repairing the two damaged vehicles. Subsequently, the German and Spanish green card agencies applied to the Danish green card agency, the Danish Motor Insurers’ Bureau (DFIM), for reimbursement of the payments made in relation to the two accidents. DFIM paid the agencies the amounts sought in their applications.

The cases before the Supreme Court concerned the issue of whether DFIM had a recourse claim against Krone for DFIM’s expenses in relation to the two accidents. 

The Supreme Court stated that the issue of governing law should be resolved according to the general (unwritten) rules of Danish law on the choice of law in tort cases. As mentioned above, in the cases at hand, the accidents had taken place in Germany and Spain. The accidents involved, among other vehicles, passenger cars that were insured and registered in Germany and Spain. Considering this, and as there were no circumstances that could give rise to a different conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the issue of Krone’s liability to pay compensation to the injured parties – or the parties that had succeeded in the rights of the injured parties – should be decided according to German law in the German case and Spanish law in the Spanish case. 

The parties agreed that no separate liability insurance had been taken out for the trailers involved in the accidents. Based on the German and Spanish green card agencies’ responses concerning the legal position in 2016 in the two countries, the Supreme Court concluded that the two trailers registered in Denmark that were involved in the accidents in Germany and Spain were to be regarded as uninsured under German and Spanish law. The Supreme Court also noted that Krone had failed to prove that the trailers in the two cases were insured under the motor vehicle liability insurance taken out for the tractors.

The Supreme Court considered that the claims should therefore be brought against Krone as the owner of the two trailers. As DFIM as the Danish green card agency had covered the repair expenses in the two cases corresponding to Krone’s liability under German and Spanish law, respectively, DFIM was entitled to bring a recourse claim against Krone. 

The High Court had reached the opposite conclusion.