Action against an insurance company concerning pension rights – not required also to bring action against the employer

An employee brought an action against an insurance company, claiming an upward adjustment of the pension basis she accrues under the pension insurance agreement between her employer and the insurance company.

The District Court and the Court of Appeal struck out the action on the ground that the requirement of legal interest under section 1‑3 of the Dispute Act was not met.

The Supreme Court held that the action had to be allowed to proceed. Because the employee maintained that the case concerned her own rights and that the insurance company was obliged towards her, the courts must, at the admissibility stage, accept this assertion without examining its merits. The Supreme Court therefore found it clear that the claimant had a legitimate need for a judgment against the insurance company, and that the requirement of legal standing was met.

The Supreme Court further held that it was not necessary also to bring an action against the employer. First, it was clear that the employee had a genuine need to pursue the claim without the employer being joined as a defendant. A judgment in the claimant’s favour could be implemented without being binding on the employer. Second, the employer’s rights or obligations were not directly affected to such an extent that the employer had to be made a party.

The order provides guidance on the parties’ connection to the subject matter in dispute as a condition for admissibility under section 1‑3 of the Dispute Act. It clarifies in particular the question of necessary (compulsory) joinder of parties in private‑law tripartite relationships.

Read the order from the Supreme Court (Norwegian only) (PDF)

Areas of law: Civil procedure, conditions for bringing an action, legal interest, necessary joinder of parties 

Key paragraphs: 35–37, 54–55

Justices: Falkanger, Bergsjø, Falch, Sæther, Poulsen