Surgical intervention a condition for insurance payment
Supreme Court judgment 22 June 2021, HR-2021-1338-A, (case no. 20-166713SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against judgment.
A (Counsel Øyvind Vidhammer), Parat (intervener) (Counsel Christen Horn Johannessen) v. Protector Forsikring ASA (Counsel Joachim Dahl Wogstad Skjelsbæk)
Justices: Matheson, Noer, Kallerud, Falch, Thyness
A pilot had lost his flying licence due to a withdrawal of his medical certificate for pilots. The withdrawal was due to a gallstone attack. He sought cover under a so-called "loss of licence insurance" taken out by his employer, which was rejected because he refused to have surgery. The Supreme Court found that the pilot had to comply with the insurer's surgery condition, and that the refusal entailed a complete lapse of the insurer's liability, see section 13-12 subsections 1 and 2 of the Insurance Contracts Act. Overall, there was a significant likelihood that the surgery would be successful and that he could have his medical certificate back. The surgery would not be particularly extensive, and the burden inflicted on him would not be so heavy as to render the surgery condition unreasonable. The request for surgery did thus not constitute "an unreasonable restriction in the freedom to be in charge of one’s own person". The appeal against the Court of Appeal's judgment in favour of the insurer was dismissed.