Personal Injury Boards in Sweden

Abstract

A distinctive characteristic of Swedish insurance practices is the frequent use of advisory boards to render opinions on claims against insurers. It is true that such boards exist in Finland, too, and may be introduced in Norway in the near future; however, the system is far more developed in Sweden, where it plays a predominant part in several lines of insurance.' Disputes as to interpretation of policies are generally referred by insurers to boards composed of lawyers and other experts from the insurance companies together with judges (or former judges) of outstanding reputation, who perform this work in their spare time. There are different boards dealing with questions of interpretation involving accident insurance, life insurance, and fire and casualty insurance. In a similar way, a great many of the claims against liability insurers for personal injuries and wrongful death are handled by two boards known as TrafikJirsiiringsanstalternas nin2nd (Traffic Insurance Companies' Board of Personal Compensation Matters; herein called the Traffic Board) and Ansvarighetsf8rsdkringens personskadendmnd (Liability Insurance Companies' Board of Personal Compensation Matters; herein called the Liability Board), which render opinions on the assessment of damages. The opinions of these boards, like the others', are only consultative. If the claimant chooses, he can sue the insurer in a court of law. However, by virtue of their composition and their competence, all these boards mentioned hold a position that, in reality, much resembles that of a court. They have exercised a considerable influence upon the Swedish law of insurance and, perhaps even more, upon the law of tort. The aim of this study is to give a short account of the activities and practical importance of the Traffic Board and the Liability Board. Foremost attention will be paid to the Traffic Board, which is the older and more important. Further on, some general remarks will be made on the usefulness of such boards as a means of simplifying the handling of the complicated legal issues that often arise with these claims in order to achieve, to some degree, a more uniform insurance practice. At the same time, some objections against this system will be dis-