Action against the State allowed to proceed
Supreme Court order of 10 June 2026, HR-2026-1308-A, (case no. 25-164182SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against Borgarting Court of Appeal's order of 1 July 2025
If Skadeförsäkring AB (publ), Gjensidige Forsikring ASA, Fremtind Forsikring AS, Tryg Forsikring A/S (advocate Henning Harborg) v. the State, represented by the Ministry of Justice and Public Security (the Office of the Attorney General, acting through advocate Bjarne Snipsøyr)
Four general insurance companies have brought proceedings against the State, claiming not to be obliged to comply with certain provisions of the Natural Damage Insurance Act following a statutory amendment that entered into force in 2025. They contend that the new statutory rules are contrary to the Constitution, the ECHR and the EEA Agreement. The companies also argue that the rules constitute unlawful State aid and cannot be implemented.
The legislative amendment essentially provides for the establishment of a joint natural damage fund, administered by the Norwegian Natural Damage Pool. All companies offering natural damage insurance are required to pay any surplus from this part of their business into the fund. In years with losses, the companies may claim compensation from the fund. During a transitional period, however, special rules apply to companies that have historically accumulated natural perils capital, such as the claimants. These companies may not claim compensation from the fund for losses. One of the purposes of the amendment is to alter the conditions of competition in the general insurance market.
The Supreme Court found that the action may proceed to hearing before the District Court.
The reasoning is that the claims made by the companies concern specific legal rights and are not abstract. The claims are also sufficiently concrete, even though the situations to which the action relates have not yet arisen. Furthermore, the action may be brought against the State, even though the Norwegian Natural Damage Pool is the counterparty in the legal relationship of rights and obligations. The Supreme Court attached weight to the fact that the State has established the Pool, and that, by virtue of their size, the claimants have significant influence over it. In its overall assessment, the Supreme Court also emphasised the need for clarification of the law and that alternative ways of resolving the issues would be impractical.
The order clarifies the conditions for bringing an action, particularly in cases against the State.
Read the order (Norwegian only) (PDF)
Area of law: Civil procedure, section 1-3 of the Dispute Act
Key paragraphs: 34, 51, 71, 77–81
Justices: Bull, Falch, Østensen Berglund, Hellerslia, Sivertsen