The most frequent causes of insurance disputes in Denmark are coverage interpretation and policy wording ambiguity, claims handling disagreements, misrepresentation and non-disclosure by policyholders under Sections 4–10 of the Danish Insurance Contracts Act (forsikringsaftaleloven), and causation and exclusion clause disputes, particularly around concurrent causes.

The most active sectors are D&O liability (driven by large group actions and litigation funding), professional indemnity (with growing claims against lawyers and auditors – some insurers have withdrawn PI cover for auditors), property and weather damage (storm and flood losses, including the DKK 500 million Nordic Waste landslide), construction (LEG defect exclusion clauses now being tested in court), cyber insurance (rising attack frequency), and workers' compensation (remote-work injury coverage clarified by a landmark 2025 Supreme Court ruling).

Recent shifts include emerging risks from climate/ESG factors, PFAS contamination, geopolitical disruption and AI-driven underwriting.

Before the Danish Complaint Board for Insurance (Ankenævnet for Forsikring) handling consumer complaints, the most frequent complaints in 2025 concerned change-of-ownership insurance (422 complaints), accident insurance (397 complaints), and life and pension insurance (372 complaints), together accounting for approximately 54% of all complaints received. The number of complaints increased from 1,898 in 2024 to 2,193 in 2025, representing an increase of approximately 15.5%.

Policy wording and drafting issues are significant contributors to insurance disputes in Denmark, sometimes involving substantial financial exposure.

Some of the recurring clauses and areas that typically give rise to contention include:

• the scope of coverage and exclusions;
• definitions of key terms such as “claim”, “damage” and “fraud”;
• subrogation and anti-subrogation provisions;
• changes in coverage that have not been transparently communicated or clearly identified; and
• where more applicable policies appear to contradict each other, for instance excess policies compared to primary policies or local policies compared to master policies.

Commercial Disputes

Settlement attempts before formal proceedings are common in the commercial context. Parties will often enter into a suspension agreement (tolling agreement) while settlement discussions are ongoing, preserving their rights to litigate or arbitrate if negotiations fail.

Under Section 126(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, attorneys must act in accordance with good advocacy practice. A party may not disclose the opposing party's settlement offer to the deciding authority without consent but may present its own client's offer. This is commonly done at the end of proceedings as it can significantly influence cost allocation (cf. Section 312(4)).

The same applies in arbitration: a party may inform the tribunal that a settlement offer was made and request that it be considered “without prejudice save as for costs” before the final decision. Alternatively, the offer may be submitted in a sealed envelope to the arbitration institute for forwarding to the tribunal after the merits are decided, allowing it to be considered in cost allocation.

In commercial insurance disputes, arbitration is the preferred forum due to its confidentiality and the parties’ greater procedural autonomy compared to court proceedings. As part of the Danish Arbitration Institute, it is possible to enter into mediation simultaneously with arbitration proceedings.

Consumers

Special rules apply to consumer agreements. Under Section 7(2) of the Danish Arbitration Act (voldgiftsloven), a pre-dispute arbitration agreement is not binding on the consumer. Arbitration is therefore rarely used in consumer insurance disputes.

The primary avenue for consumers is the Danish Insurance Complaints Board (Ankenævnet for Forsikring). In practice, insurers overwhelmingly comply.

In 2023, the Danish Mediation Institute (Mediationsinstituttet) and Forsikring & Pension (F&P), the trade association representing the insurance industry, entered into a cooperation agreement. Under this agreement, member insurers commit to offering mediation as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in consumer disputes. The initiative provides policyholders with a less adversarial avenue for resolving insurance disputes outside the traditional complaints board process or court proceedings.

The Danish choice-of-law rules for insurance contracts are, to a certain extent, governed by Directive 2009/138/EC (“Solvency II Directive”), and through the Solvency II Directive – by Article 7 of Regulation No. 593/2008 (“Rome I Regulation”). Where an insurance contract falls outside the scope of the Solvency II Directive, the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations (“Rome Convention”) applies instead.

The Solvency II Directive

The Solvency II Directive was implemented into Danish law in 2015 by the issuance of the Executive Order on choice of law for certain insurance contracts (Bekendtgørelse om lovvalg for visse forsikringsaftaler), which entered into force on 1 January 2016.

The Solvency II Directive applies to life insurance and non-life insurance undertakings established in the territory of an EU Member State. Article 178 of the Directive requires that the choice of law in such contracts be determined in accordance with Article 7 of the Rome I Regulation. Consequently, even though Denmark has not implemented the Rome I Regulation as such, Article 7 applies in Danish law through the Solvency II Directive.

Large Risks

Under Article 7 of the Rome I Regulation, insurance contracts covering large risks (as defined in Article 13(27) of the Solvency II Directive, which typically concern commercial activities such as corporate liability and transport insurance) are governed by the law chosen by the parties.

In the absence of such a choice, the insurance contract is governed by the law of the country where the insurer has its habitual residence, cf. Article 7(2), second subparagraph. The default rule may be displaced where it is clear from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is manifestly more closely connected with another country, in which case the law of that other country applies, cf. Article 7(2), second paragraph.

Other Risks

It is also possible to agree on a choice of law in insurance contracts that do not cover large risks (typically consumer insurance). However, the parties may only choose among the options listed in Article 7(3). These include, for example, the law of the member state in which the risk is situated at the time of conclusion of the contract, or the law of the country in which the policyholder has his habitual residence. For life insurance contract, a choice of law is limited to the law of the EU member state of which the policyholder is a national, cf. Article 7(3)(c).

Where the parties have not agreed on a choice of law in accordance with the options listed in Article 7(3), the contract is governed by the law of the member state in which the risk is situated at the time of the conclusion of the contract, cf. Article 7(3), last subparagraph.

The Rome Convention

The Rome Convention applies in Denmark to the extent that the Solvency II Directive does not. Since Article 7 of the Rome I Regulation does not apply to reinsurance contracts, cf. Article 7(1), last sentence, the Rome Convention’s choice-of-law rules are primarily relevant for reinsurance contracts. Denmark has implemented the Rome Convention where the risk was situated in an EU member state.

Under the Rome Convention, the parties are free to choose the applicable law, cf. Article 3. In the absence of a choice, the contract is governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected, cf. Article 4.

Non-Contractual Choice of Law

The Rome II Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations) applies in all EU member states except Denmark. As a result, choice of law in non-contractual liability matters is not governed by statute in Denmark and must be determined according to unwritten Danish choice-of-law principles. The traditional starting point is the lex loci delicti principle, under which tort claims are governed by the law of the place where the damage occurred (skadestedet).

In cases of distance delicts, where the harmful act is committed in one country while the effect occurs in another, the lex loci delicti principle encompasses both the place of conduct (more precisely, lex loci delicti commissi) and the place of effect (more precisely, lex loci damni).

In recent decades, following the Supreme Court judgment reported in UfR 1999.255 H, which emphasised the place of effect, legal scholarship predominantly emphasises the place of effect as determinative for choice of law.

For recourse claims (regreskrav), the general rule is that such claims are governed by the same law as the underlying claim from which the right of recourse derives – similar to Article 20 of the Rome II Regulation. This principle was recently affirmed by the Eastern High Court (Østre Landsret) in its ruling of 1 April 2026, in proceedings brought by several insurance companies that had been subrogated into the insured’s position and sought recourse against a third party.

Danish courts generally uphold jurisdiction clauses in commercial insurance contracts under the principle of party autonomy, cf. Section 245(1) of the Administration of Justice Act (retsplejeloven).

For parties domiciled in EU member states, jurisdiction is assessed under Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation, but Articles 15–16 impose restrictions for insurance contracts. A jurisdiction agreement in insurance matters may only deviate from the default rules if it:

• was concluded after the dispute arose;
• expands the policyholder’s forum options;
• designates the courts of the member state where both parties were domiciled at contracting;
• involves a policyholder not domiciled in a member state (with exceptions); or
• covers “large risks” under Article 16, including marine, aviation, transport and Solvency II large risks.

A valid jurisdiction clause deprives otherwise competent courts of jurisdiction. Cases brought in violation will be dismissed under Section 248, cf. Section 245(1), of the Administration of Justice Act, or under Section 8(1), cf. Section 4, of the Danish Arbitration Act for arbitration agreements (voldgiftsloven).

A highly debated procedural question concerns direct claims: whether a party can validly enforce a jurisdiction or arbitration agreement with another party to have a third party’s claim rejected by the courts. In Danish case law, the courts have allowed such enforcement where the direct claim has been deemed contractual in nature (UfR 1983.123 H; UfR 2001.1529 H). In certain cases, the courts have even enforced arbitration agreements in tortious direct claims, provided there were identical agreements in every link of the contractual chain (UfR 2014.2042 H). Under Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation, however, jurisdiction agreements can only be enforced against parties who have consented in accordance with its formal requirements. Although the Court of Justice of the European Union has developed a principle allowing enforcement against a third party that has succeeded into one of the original parties’ rights and obligations, this principle does not extend to direct claims. The Brussels I Regulation therefore generally does not permit enforcement of jurisdiction clauses in direct claim scenarios.

Special rules apply to consumer agreements. A pre-dispute jurisdiction clause – or an arbitration agreement – is not binding on the consumer (see 1.3 Dispute Resolution Strategy and Outcomes). A consumer domiciled in Denmark may bring proceedings before the courts of their own domicile where the insurance contract was concluded in connection with activities directed at Denmark (Articles 17(1) and 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation; Section 247(1) of the Administration of Justice Act). This protection may also apply where the insurer is domiciled outside the EU/EFTA (Articles 6(1) and 18(1)).

Cross-border insurance disputes in Denmark are governed by a layered framework. Where a dispute involves connecting factors to other EU or EFTA countries, jurisdiction is generally determined under the Brussels I Regulation and the Lugano Convention, including their protective rules for policyholders, insureds and beneficiaries. For defendants outside those regimes, jurisdiction is governed by the Danish Administration of Justice Act (retsplejeloven).

For contractual claims, Section 242 provides that cases may be brought before the court at the place where the obligation underlying the case has been or is to be performed. For non-contractual claims, Sections 243 and 246 allow Danish courts to hear claims against foreign defendants where either the wrongful act or its harmful effects occurred in Denmark.

• In the Eastern High Court’s judgment of 9 January 2026 in the OW Bunker case (B-2633-17), jurisdiction was established over foreign indirect owners because the alleged wrongful conduct had predominantly occurred in Denmark.
• The Eastern High Court similarly accepted Danish jurisdiction in an insurance recourse claim concerning dividend tax against a US law firm, arising from advice given to a German bank (decision of 1 April 2026, BS-28783/2024 and BS-28785/2024). The Court held that Sections 246(1) and 243 applied because the engagement concerned transactions directed at Denmark and the effects of the alleged legal wrong occurred there.

The Danish choice-of-law rules for insurance contracts are, to a certain extent, governed by Directive 2009/138/EC (“Solvency II Directive”), and through the Solvency II Directive – by Article 7 of Regulation No. 593/2008 (“Rome I Regulation”). See under 2.1 Choice of Law in Insurance Contracts.

Because Denmark does not participate in the Rome II Regulation, non-contractual claims are governed by unwritten Danish choice-of-law principles.

• The traditional starting point is the lex loci delicti principle, under which tort claims are governed by the law of the place where the damage occurred (skadestedet).
• In cases of distance delicts, where the harmful act is committed in one country while the effect occurs in another, the lex loci delicti principle encompasses both the place of conduct (more precisely, lex loci delicti commissi) and the place of effect (more precisely, lex loci damni).
• In recent decades, following the Supreme Court judgment reported in UfR 1999.255 H, which emphasised the place of effect, legal scholarship predominantly emphasises the place of effect as determinative for choice of law.

• For recourse claims (regreskrav), the general rule is that such claims are governed by the same law as the underlying claim from which the right of recourse derives – similar to Article 20 of the Rome II Regulation. This principle was recently affirmed by the Eastern High Court (Østre Landsret) in its ruling of 1 April 2026.

Practical challenges include: distinguishing contractual disputes from tort and recourse claims; determining where the insured risk or damage is located; and assessing whether a jurisdiction or choice-of-law clause was validly incorporated.

Danish courts do not issue anti-suit injunctions. The concept of anti-suit relief is not part of the Danish procedural regime, and there is no statutory basis or established case law supporting the grant of such injunctions in Denmark.

For court proceedings, Section 248(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act (retsplejeloven) provides that the court of its own motion shall examine whether the venue is correct. However, if the defendant does not raise an objection to the jurisdiction, the court is deemed to be the proper venue.

A case brought before a Danish court in violation of a valid jurisdiction agreement between the parties will be dismissed pursuant to Section 248, cf. Section 245(1), of the Danish Administration of Justice Act for jurisdiction clauses, or pursuant to Section 8(1), cf. Section 4, of the Danish Arbitration Act (voldgiftsloven) for arbitration agreements.

There is limited Danish case law addressing AI systems in litigation.

In a recent ruling, the Maritime and Commercial High Court (Sø- og Handelsretten) addressed the evidentiary status of AI-generated analysis. The case concerned a party who sought to rely on output from an AI system as the foundation for expert questions (skønsspørgsmål) in civil proceedings. The Court held that AI-generated output cannot automatically form the basis for such questions; the party relying on the AI output must demonstrate its reliability, methodology, and relevance to the issues in dispute. The ruling signals that Danish courts will apply critical scrutiny to AI-derived evidence and require proper validation before it can be used in legal proceedings.

In a separate development, the Danish Bar Council’s Disciplinary Board (Advokatnævnet) fined a lawyer DKK10,000 for citing two court judgments as legal precedent in a legal claim – judgments that did not exist. The case highlights the professional responsibility risks that arise when lawyers rely on AI-generated content without independent verification.

Danish courts recognise and enforce arbitration agreements, including those contained in commercial contracts of insurance and reinsurance. A lawsuit concerning disputes that, by agreement between the parties, are to be settled by arbitration shall, upon request, be dismissed by the courts, unless the arbitration agreement is invalid or the arbitration proceedings cannot be conducted for other reasons, cf. Section 8(1), cf. Section 4 of the Danish Arbitration Act (Voldgiftsloven).

Denmark is a party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the “New York Convention”), having ratified it in 1972.

Foreign arbitral awards are generally recognised and enforced in Denmark. The enforcement process is governed by Section 38 of the Danish Arbitration Act (voldgiftsloven), which is substantively aligned with Article 35 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 (the “UNCITRAL Model Law”). As a rule, foreign arbitral awards can be enforced in Denmark under Article 478 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act (retsplejeloven).

Danish courts may refuse recognition or enforcement only on the limited grounds in Section 39 of the Danish Arbitration Act, reflecting Article 36 of the UNCITRAL Model Law and Article V of the New York Convention. Grounds include lack of proper notice of arbitrator appointment or proceedings, inability to present one’s case, or the award addressing disputes or matters outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.

In Denmark, it is fairly common for particularly large-scale insurance matters to be resolved through arbitration.

Applicable Rules

The main rules are set out in the Danish Arbitration Act (Voldgiftsloven), which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law.

The Danish Institute of Arbitration (DIA) operates under its own set of rules of arbitration procedure (the Rules of Arbitration adopted by the Board of the Danish Institute of Arbitration) in addition to the Danish Arbitration Act.

Arbitration in Insurance Disputes

According to Section 7(2) of the Danish Arbitration Act, an arbitration agreement entered into before a dispute arises is not binding on the consumer. Instead, disputes regarding consumer insurance are typically resolved either through the Danish Insurance Complaints Board or through the ordinary courts.

When it comes to commercial insurance, it is also not customary to agree on arbitration clauses in many standard business insurance policies. Consequently, disputes originating from insurance contracts are generally adjudicated by the ordinary courts. However, there is a greater tendency to include arbitration agreements in larger insurance programmes, particularly those involving significant liability insurance.

Confidentiality in Arbitration

The Danish Arbitration Act does not address confidentiality, but there is an implied duty of confidentiality in arbitration. If there is no agreement, the arbitral tribunal can decide on confidentiality after hearing the parties, according to Section 19(2) of the Danish Arbitration Act.

Appeals Against Arbitration Awards

In Denmark, arbitral awards cannot be challenged through ordinary legal remedies. Awards of the arbitral tribunal are not subject to appeal or general review by the Danish courts. At the request of a party or upon the court’s own assessment of the arbitral award, the court may set aside the award on grounds of invalidity in accordance with Section 37 of the Danish Arbitration Act. Any legal action to set aside an arbitral award must be brought within three months of the date on which the party requesting the setting aside received the award.

According to Section 37(2), an arbitral award may only be set aside if:

• The requesting party proves that: A party lacked legal capacity under its domicile’s law, or the arbitration agreement is invalid under the chosen law (or, absent a choice, Danish law);
1. the requesting party was not properly notified of the arbitrator appointment or proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case;
2. the arbitral award addresses disputes outside the scope of the arbitration agreement or decides matters beyond it; or
3. the tribunal’s composition or procedure did not comply with the parties’ agreement or the Act.
• The court finds that:
1. the dispute is not arbitrable under Danish law; or
2. the award is manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the country.

Several key trends are shaping insurer and insured positions.

• Complex liability claims – D&O, professional Iindemnity and W&I disputes have grown in complexity and value. Litigation funding has enabled large group actions against major Danish corporations. Natural disasters, cyber risks, geopolitical instability and digitalisation contribute to this trend.
• Consumer protection – recent amendments to the Danish Consumer Contracts Act (forbrugeraftaleloven) and the Danish Insurance Contracts Act (forsikringsaftaleloven) reflect stronger policyholder protection, particularly for distance selling of financial services.
• Insurer insolvencies – Alpha Insurance (2018) and Gefion Insurance (2021) insolvencies have raised questions about policyholder protection through the Danish Guarantee Fund for Non-life Insurance Companies (Garantifonden for skadesforsikringsselskaber).
• Workers’ compensation subrogation – Danish courts are testing whether a workers’ compensation insurer may pursue a manufacturer where an employee’s injury was caused by a defective product. Given the substantial sums involved, viable subrogation routes could materially affect insurers’ recovery strategies and manufacturers’ liability exposure.
• All-risks construction insurance – in UfR 2025.2008 / FED 2025.63, concerning a LEG3 extension, the Eastern High Court held that foreseeability must be assessed at policy inception, not retrospectively. The judgment confirms that all-risk policies may cover defective workmanship and limits insurers’ ability to deny coverage merely because a contractor should have recognised the risk.

These trends are prompting insurers to adopt broader exclusions and higher premiums, while insureds increasingly challenge coverage denials through litigation.

Insurance policies are primarily interpreted according to their wording. For standard-form contracts, the contra proferentem rule (koncipistregel) may apply, construing ambiguous terms against the insurer. However, for individually negotiated provisions or agreed documents, this rule carries little weight. In such cases, interpretation extends beyond the literal wording to include the objective and commercial rationale of the provision.

A recent high-profile example is the Nilfisk case (January 2026), in which the Eastern High Court (Østre Landsret) ruled in favour of the insurer. The dispute concerned insurance coverage for tornado damage to Nilfisk’s US distribution centre. The insurer successfully argued that a monetary cap on natural disaster coverage in the master policy applied, even though the cap did not appear in the local policy. Nilfisk had initially won at the City Court (byretten), but the insurer appealed and prevailed at the High Court. The insurer’s claim amounted to EUR17 million, but with interest and costs, Nilfisk faced potential liability of EUR23 million. The case, which had been ongoing since October 2022, illustrates how policy interpretation disputes can result in significant financial exposure and protracted litigation through the Danish court system.

For consumer contracts, the contra proferentem rule is codified in Section 38b of the Danish Contracts Act (aftaleloven), which provides that if doubt arises as to the interpretation of a contract term that has not been individually negotiated, the term shall be interpreted in the manner most favourable to the consumer.

A recent example of its application is the Danish Insurance Complaint Board’s decision of 5 February 2025 (case 102526), concerning whether a DKK200,000 coverage cap for “treatment abroad” applied when the treatment was also available in Denmark. The Board found an ambiguity between the coverage summary and the policy terms, as the coverage summary omitted the word “private” when describing treatments “not offered in Denmark”. The Board interpreted the ambiguity in favour of the insured, holding that the coverage cap only applies if the treatment is not offered in Denmark in either the public or private sector.

Cyber and technology coverage disputes are an emerging area in Denmark. While no landmark court decisions have been issued yet, the increasing prevalence of cyber incidents is expected to generate new coverage questions.

The implementation of the EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) within the Danish financial regulation, as reflected in recent amendments to the Danish Financial Business Act (lov om finansiel virksomhed), imposes operational resilience requirements on financial undertakings, including insurers, which may over time generate disputes about coverage for technology failures and cyber events.

Danish insurers are increasingly introducing cyber exclusions in traditional policies while offering standalone cyber products. Key areas likely to produce disputes include:

• war/hostile-act exclusions applied to state-sponsored cyberattacks;
• “systemic event” language in cyber policies;
• business interruption claims from IT failures or ransomware; and
• notification and remediation cost coverage.

Aggregation and liability limit disputes arise most frequently in professional indemnity and liability insurance, where multiple claims may stem from a single underlying act, error or omission. Section 91 of the Danish Insurance Contracts Act (forsikringsaftaleloven) establishes the foundational principle that a liability insurer must pay if a covered event occurs during the insurance period, even where harm materialises later. This occurrence-based framework raises questions about what constitutes a single “event” for policy limits and aggregation purposes.

In practice, aggregation disputes tend to arise in the following contexts:

• professional liability claims where an adviser has given similar erroneous advice to multiple clients;
• product liability claims affecting multiple claimants; and
• financial crime scenarios where a single scheme produces losses across many victims.

The court proceedings arising from the Danske Bank Estonia money-laundering matter, which became public in 2018 and led to multiple investor claims from 2019 onwards, involved related alleged disclosure failures. These proceedings raised complex questions about whether such claims constitute a single occurrence or multiple occurrences for insurance purposes.

Sanctions and illegality considerations are increasingly relevant to coverage disputes in Denmark, reflecting EU sanctions regimes and domestic regulatory requirements.

In the insurance context, sanctions issues may arise in several ways:

• insurers may be legally prohibited from paying sanctioned persons or entities;
• policy terms may contain sanctions exclusion clauses voiding coverage where performance would expose the insurer to sanctions; and
• reinsurance arrangements may be disrupted where a reinsurer is subject to a different sanctions regime.

For insurance intermediaries providing life or investment-related insurance, the Danish Anti-Money Laundering Act (hvidvaskloven) requires enhanced due diligence and sanctions screening.

Published Danish case law on the intersection of sanctions and insurance coverage remains limited, but the market trend mirrors that across the EU. Insurers are introducing broader sanctions exclusion clauses, and the legal uncertainty surrounding their enforceability – particularly where they purport to override statutory indemnity obligations under the Danish Insurance Contracts Act (forsikringsaftaleloven) – is likely to generate disputes.

Public policy considerations under Section 36 of the Danish Contracts Act (aftaleloven) may also be invoked where enforcement would require conduct contrary to mandatory law or public order.

Under Section 3 b of the Danish Insurance Contracts Act (forsikringsaftaleloven), insurers must, upon request, provide a written, reasoned explanation when declining to underwrite or terminating a policy. Section 25, read with Section 24(1), obliges insurers to inform the insured of the right to interim payment of the undisputed portion no later than three months after notification of the insured event.

Particularly in a consumer context, claims handling practices face increasing scrutiny. The Danish Insurance Complaints Board (Ankenævnet for Forsikring) has shown willingness to find against insurers who:

• provide inconsistent reasons for denial;
• withdraw coverage without legitimate grounds;
• impose procedural requirements that diminish coverage beyond the policy terms; or
• delay decisions unreasonably.

While ESG and climate-related coverage disputes remain at an early stage in Denmark, with no significant published case law specifically addressing such claims, the conditions for increased dispute activity are clearly emerging.

On the risk side, climate exposure is becoming financially material. A 2024 white paper by Danske Bank Asset Management, titled Count(AI)ng the elephant in the room: Climate and Nature talk in Nordic Earnings Calls, analysed over 2,200 Nordic earnings call transcripts from 2019 to 2024 and found that climate-related topics are now mentioned in approximately one-third of earnings calls. A CIP Foundation report underscores the scale of the exposure: Denmark faces potential flood damage of DKK400 billion over the next 100 years if climate adaptation is not significantly strengthened. As observed by Danish insurance practitioners in November 2025: “Natural disasters, storms and fires – our own nature has also become wilder” (“Naturkatastrofer, storme og brande – vores egen natur er også blevet vildere”).

Nature-related risks remain underappreciated. The Danske Bank study found that nature topics appear in only about 15% of earnings calls – what it calls “the elephant in the room” – even though 51% of Nordic market value is linked to companies with moderate to high negative impact on nature, and 39% show moderate to high dependency on nature. For insurers, companies with significant but undisclosed nature exposure may present underwriting risks that standard policy language does not capture.

Insurers are responding through policy design. Danish insurers are introducing ESG-related exclusions in liability policies, particularly for knowingly misleading sustainability claims (greenwashing). Insurers are also assessing whether traditional property coverage adequately addresses physical climate risks, including increasingly severe flood and storm damage. Two recent cases illustrate these tensions. The Nilfisk case concerned coverage for the destruction of Nilfisk’s American distribution centre following a tornado; in January 2026, the Eastern High Court ruled in favour of the insurer, finding that the master policy’s sub-limit for storm damage applied. The dispute had been ongoing since October 2022, and Nilfisk has sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Nordic Waste case presents a different dimension of climate-related exposure. Nordic Waste was a Danish soil treatment and recycling company operating a large facility in Ølst, near Randers. In late 2023, a massive landslide occurred at the site, where large quantities of contaminated soil had been stored on a hillside. The landslide caused significant amounts of polluted soil to slide toward Randers Fjord, creating a serious environmental emergency with potential implications for environmental liability and remediation coverage.

In Denmark, insurance brokerage is a distinct and regulated profession governed by the Danish Insurance Mediation Act (Lov om forsikringsformidling) and the Executive Order on Good Practice for Insurance Distributors (Bekendtgørelse om god skik for forsikringsdistributører).

The Danish Insurance Mediation Act (Lov om forsikringsformidling) requires that all persons carrying out insurance distribution activities have sufficient competence, and ancillary insurance intermediaries must have appropriate knowledge of the products distributed. Delegated underwriting and claims authority arrangements have been observed in Denmark. The bankruptcies of Gefion Insurance and Alpha Insurance led to disputes over insurance agents’ commissions.

The Gefion Insurance case illustrates the risks. In 2019 and 2020, the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority (FSA) issued multiple orders addressing governance, claims handling, and capital adequacy issues arising in part from the company’s extensive reliance on delegated authority arrangements across several EU jurisdictions. The Alpha Insurance liquidation in 2018 likewise highlighted the operational and financial risks faced by an insurer operating across the EU through service provision arrangements.

A May 2026 Maritime and Commercial High Court judgment in Ecolog International FZE v Tokio Marine Europe S.A. examined the liability boundaries between a policyholder, an insurer operating through a coverholder (First Marine), and a freight forwarder (Maersk Logistics) that had assisted in procuring cargo insurance for a transport to Mali. The court acquitted both Tokio Marine and Maersk Logistics, holding that professional policyholders bear responsibility for verifying their coverage scope, even when relying on intermediaries. The judgment underscores that in delegated authority arrangements, professional policyholders cannot simply describe their insurance needs and assume the desired coverage has been established – they must independently verify that the policy terms actually provide the coverage sought.

Key challenges in coverage disputes involving delegated authority include:

• whether the agent’s actions bind the insurer, particularly where the agent has exceeded its actual authority, but the policyholder relied on apparent authority;
• responsibility for errors or delays in claims handling by third-party administrators;
• the attribution of knowledge between the agent and the insurer for the purposes of coverage defences; and
• the policyholder’s recourse where the delegated entity is insolvent or unresponsive.

D&O Disputes

As litigation funding has become more common, there has been a noticeable rise in large group actions against major Danish companies, many of which trigger coverage under D&O insurance policies. These cases frequently involve substantial claims for damages, and the volume of case material can be considerable, resulting in significant legal costs for insurers defending such claims.

For example, a number of Danish and international investors filed several class actions against the Danish bank “Danske Bank” and several individuals, seeking damages for share price declines and violations of disclosure requirements following the money laundering case relating to the bank’s Estonian branch. In November 2022, the District Court of Lyngby considered one of the investors’ claims for approximately DKK2.4 billion against Danske Bank’s former CEO. The court dismissed the claim in its entirety, finding that the CEO had not received information that could have resulted in the share price decline, and ordered the plaintiffs to pay legal costs in an amount of DKK10 million. Certain investors have appealed the decisions to the Danish Eastern High Court. The appeal remains pending before the Eastern High Court and has now reached an advanced procedural stage, with the main hearing scheduled for early 2027.

At the same time, D&O insurance policies increasingly provide less coverage, resulting in several ongoing cases before the Danish courts. This has contributed to an emerging trend whereby large companies now enter into indemnification letters with board members and other relevant stakeholders to ensure the security of board members’ positions and the companies’ ability to recruit and retain talent.

W&I Disputes

W&I insurance is increasingly common in M&A transactions, reflecting a market trend towards managing risks related to warranty breaches. As a result, M&A disputes are often very large and complex, involving high-value claims.

In the Gram Equipment case, FSN Capital acquired Gram Equipment A/S from Procuritas Capital Investors IV in late 2017/early 2018. Post-completion, FSN discovered that management had deliberately manipulated financial statements to inflate performance. FSN initiated arbitration against the seller vehicle (Green Magnum S.A.), resulting in liability for breach of warranties and an award of approximately EUR87 million. EUR50 million was paid under the W&I policy, but the seller vehicle went bankrupt and could not cover the remainder. FSN then sued the former CEO and CFO, Procuritas entities, and their former managing partner before the Maritime and Commercial High Court for approximately EUR87.5 million (c. DKK650 million). On 3 November 2023, the court acquitted all defendants, finding that although management had acted negligently, FSN had not proven loss – an expert valuation assessed Gram Equipment at EUR60.2 million at closing, and FSN had already received EUR50 million from the W&I insurance. FSN has appealed to the Western High Court, with the main hearing scheduled for autumn 2026.

PI Disputes

A similar pattern can be observed in liability cases against professional advisers, such as lawyers and auditors, with a growing tendency to hold such advisers liable.

For example, the Danish tax authorities recently brought a claim exceeding DKK700 million against a law firm that had issued a legal opinion on the possibility of reclaiming withholding tax. This opinion was subsequently used by a foreign bank to make unjustified refund claims against the Danish tax authorities, resulting in a historic loss for the Danish State. In the autumn of 2023, the Danish Supreme Court found the law firm liable for DKK400 million in damages (judgment published in UfR 2024.764 H).

As a consequence of the increasing number of claims against auditors, several insurers in Denmark have withdrawn from offering PI coverage to auditors, and premiums have increased significantly.

Casualty coverage disputes in Denmark reflect changing risk exposures and new types of loss.

In commercial and product liability insurance, series-loss clauses – treating all claims from the same liability-triggering circumstance as a single insured event – generate extensive disputes over when a loss occurred and whether claims should be aggregated or treated separately.

There is also increasing focus on the precise scope of coverage as new risk categories emerge, including environmental liability, product liability and cyber incidents. Disputes increasingly arise over whether such risks fall within existing coverage or require bespoke policies.

Rising frequency and severity of claims for personal injury, environmental damage, and serial defects have prompted insurers to reassess coverage and subrogation positions. Many insurers have entered mutual agreements to waive or limit subrogation rights, reducing administrative costs and inter-insurer litigation.

A particularly significant development in workers’ compensation is the Supreme Court judgment of 28 April 2026 concerning the threshold for loss-of-earning-capacity compensation under Section 17 of the Danish Workers’ Compensation Act (arbejdsskadesikringsloven). The judgment overruled the previous practice of Arbejdsmarkedets Erhvervssikring and Ankestyrelsen, which had denied compensation where the loss of earning capacity was below approximately 15%. The Supreme Court set the lower threshold (bagatelgrænsen) at 5%, meaning that injured workers with a loss of earning capacity between 5% and 14% may now be entitled to compensation. The immediate consequence is that a very large number of workers’ compensation cases – dating back up to 30 years – must be reopened and reassessed. This ruling is expected to have substantial implications for insurers writing workers’ compensation coverage, both in terms of reserve adjustments for historical claims and increased exposure going forward.

Danish insureds face significant liability exposure across several insurance lines, with claims of increasing complexity and value. The principal areas of exposure include professional indemnity (PI), Directors’ and Officers’ (D&O) insurance, Commercial General Liability (CGL) and Warranty & Indemnity (W&I).

In terms of CGL, insureds operating in the commercial and industrial sectors face third-party claims for bodily injury, property damage, and related losses. CGL policies respond to these exposures and, as with PI and D&O insurance, the complexity and documentation burden of defending such claims have increased.

The liability risk landscape for Danish insureds is in transition, driven by factors that may give rise to new categories of claims.

AI and automated decision-making systems are creating new grounds for liability. Where AI causes loss – through erroneous advice, algorithmic deficiencies, or defective output – novel questions arise regarding standard of care, causation, and allocation of responsibility. Established Danish case law on AI-specific liability remains limited, though AI is increasingly embedded in insurers’ own underwriting and claims handling.

Adoption is accelerating – according to Ernst & Young, 84% of surveyed Danish insurers planned to implement generative AI in the near future. Claims are likely to focus on data quality, model bias, transparency and human oversight.

Regulatory change reinforces these trends. The EU’s AI framework emphasises governance, transparency and accountability.

A related development concerns liability allocation between insurers and third-party service providers. In If Skadeforsikring v G4S Security Services A/S, the insurer sought recourse from an alarm security provider for compensation paid following a burglary at a policyholder’s premises. The Danish Industry Association for Security and Safety (Sikkerhedsbranchen) intervened, warning that liability would effectively make alarm companies “reinsurers” of burglary risk. The City Court of Glostrup ruled in favour of G4S on 4 July 2025, finding no basis for liability. The insurer has appealed, and the case is now pending before the Eastern High Court (Østre Landsret). The outcome may have broader implications for liability allocation between insurers and security or technology service providers.

Under Danish law, insurers principally fund the defence of claims against insureds under liability insurance policies, particularly PI, CGL and D&O policies. In the absence of an express contractual provision, Section 92(1) of the Danish Insurance Contracts Act (forsikringsaftaleloven) provides the statutory default under liability insurance, obliging the insurer to fund the defence of covered claims. Under Section 92(3) of the Act, legal costs and interest may be payable by the insurer even where the sum insured is exceeded, subject to any contrary agreement in the policy. In practice, Danish PI and CGL policies generally do not depart from this principle, meaning that insureds benefit from defence cost coverage that may extend beyond the indemnity limit.

Claims against insureds are becoming more complex and higher in value, with particular concentration in the PI, D&O, and W&I segments. Contributing factors include:

• extensive documentation requirements, including disclosure of voluminous electronic records;
• multi-party and group proceedings, particularly in D&O claims involving listed companies;
• cross-border elements, including disputes involving foreign counterparties, parallel proceedings, and the interaction of different legal systems; and
• the availability of litigation funding, which enables claimants to pursue larger and more resource-intensive claims against insured professional advisers and management.

In Denmark, litigation cost risk is managed principally through legal expenses insurance (Retshjælpsforsikring) and third-party litigation funding.

Insurance for legal expenses is the most established mechanism. It is generally included within home, building, motor or liability insurance policies. Market terms are broadly standardised, although deductibles and indemnity limits vary. This cover provides a baseline layer of funding for certain disputes involving individual policyholders and smaller commercial insureds.

Third-party litigation funding is increasingly used, particularly for large or complex claims.

There is no current evidence that AI-generated or AI-assisted claims are driving a quantified increase in claims volumes against Danish insureds. However, one of the concerns is that AI tools may lower the cost of generating claims, which soon may lead to a higher volume of submissions, including repetitive or poorly particularised claims.

Third-party claims and direct actions against insurers are most developed in liability insurance, where injured parties may bring claims directly against the insurer.

Direct claims are most common in motor vehicle liability, where the Danish Road Traffic Act (færdselsloven) grants injured parties a statutory right to claim directly against the tortfeasor’s insurer. The Danish Maritime Act (søloven) similarly provides specific statutory bases for direct action.

Recent developments influencing the defence of claims against insureds in Denmark include heightened regulatory scrutiny, increased awareness of reputational risk, and the growing incidence of co-ordinated multi-claimants’ actions.

Insurers have increasingly entered into mutual agreements to waive or limit subrogation rights, avoiding protracted and resource-intensive inter-insurer disputes. Such arrangements reflect a pragmatic approach to reducing administrative costs and enabling a more efficient defence posture.

Also, Danish insurers are continuously improving their advisory processes and documentation, both to protect their reputation and to meet the increasing regulatory scrutiny in the sector.

There are no official statistics showing that recent geopolitical developments have increased the overall volume of insurance litigation in Denmark. However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the EU sanctions regime, and energy-market volatility have generated coverage disputes, particularly in Denmark’s maritime and energy sectors. These dispute and coverage tensions include marine, and cargo claims with a Russia or Ukraine nexus, trade-credit losses involving sanctioned counterparties, and business-interruption claims arising from supply-chain disruption and energy-price volatility.

Denmark applies EU sanctions directly, and evolving EU restrictive measures against Russia and Belarus have created operational and legal challenges for Danish insurers. Payment screening obligations have, in some instances, delayed or blocked claims payments where a sanctioned party is involved in the loss chain. Insurers have adopted enhanced compliance procedures and, in certain cases, relied on sanctions exclusion clauses or the general principle that performance of an illegal act cannot be required.

War, terrorism and political-risk exclusions have come under heightened scrutiny following the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Key questions concern how traditional exclusionary language applies to modern forms of conflict, including cyber operations, sanctions, hybrid warfare and “grey zone” activity that may not amount to formally declared war.

Many Danish policies exclude losses arising directly or indirectly from acts of war. Application depends on policy wording, causation standards, and whether the loss can be attributed to war, terrorism or political violence. Uncertainty arises where causes operate concurrently or the connection with armed conflict is indirect, potentially leaving businesses without coverage for Ukraine-related losses even where the immediate cause is not military action.

Insurers have responded by refining exclusionary language, introducing specific Russia-Ukraine conflict exclusions, and adding territorial limitations. Cyber-insurance raises particular issues: whether a state-attributed cyber-attack constitutes “war” or a “hostile act” under the policy remains uncertain, especially where state involvement is indirect.

There is limited Danish case law interpreting these exclusions in relation to recent events, and no settled judicial approach to state-sponsored cyber-attacks or hybrid conflicts has emerged.

Supply-chain instability and energy-market volatility have given rise to increased business-interruption, contingent business-interruption, and trade-credit claims in the Danish market. These exposures have tested aggregation provisions, particularly where multiple policyholders experience losses traceable to a common geopolitical cause, such as a shipping-route disruption or an energy-price spike. Accumulation risk has become a focus of reinsurance negotiations.

While a distinct new “category” of insured loss has not been formally recognised, the practical effect has been to stretch existing wordings – particularly in relation to the definition of “event” and the causal link required for contingent business-interruption claims – and to encourage more precise policy drafting for supply-chain and systemic-risk scenarios.

Ongoing geopolitical uncertainty is expected to drive continued refinement of exclusion clauses, restrictive aggregation language, and more granular risk-information requirements at placement. Underwriters are likely to require enhanced disclosure of supply-chain dependencies, geographic exposures and sanctions-compliance frameworks. Dispute activity is expected to remain elevated in marine, cargo, energy, trade-credit lines and cyber-insurance coverage disputes.

Cybercrime and political unrest are the leading concerns for the Danish insurance industry, followed by legislation, climate change and artificial intelligence. These concerns are likely to translate directly into coverage disputes.

Cyber losses will continue to test the scope of affirmative coverage, war and state-actor exclusions, causation and aggregation, while regulatory breaches may raise questions concerning exclusions, notification duties and defence costs. Climate-related physical losses, transition risks and greenwashing allegations may engage property, liability, professional indemnity and D&O policies.

PFAS and other long-tail environmental liabilities, concentrated supply chains, reputational harm and coordinated claims remain important additional exposures. The Danish market is responding through more granular policy language, tighter risk-information requirements and increased use of data-driven underwriting, but existing wordings may not map cleanly onto novel or interconnected losses.

Weather Conditions and Natural Disasters

One of the most significant impacts comes from the increased frequency of extreme weather events. In Denmark, recent years have seen significant storm damage and extreme rainfall, leading to floods, all of which have significantly influenced underwriting assessments.

Natural disasters are also affecting underwriting risk. A pertinent example of the impact of natural disasters in Denmark is the “Nordic Waste” case. See 4.7 ESG and Climate-Related Coverage.

ESG as a Risk Factor

If an insured performs poorly in the ESG areas, this can lead to reputational damage, regulatory scrutiny and legal challenges, all of which may result in insurance claims. Therefore, some Danish insurance companies have started to incorporate ESG factors as risks on a par with other traditional risks when underwriting new customers.

Regulatory Scrutiny

Regulatory scrutiny is also increasing. In 2026, the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority (FSA) issued formal orders following a targeted sustainability inspection of the Danish insurer Velliv Pension & Livsforsikring A/S. The identified deficiencies concerned disclosure of sustainability risks affecting product returns, the classification of alternative investments as sustainable, and compliance with both the “do no significant harm” and principal adverse impact requirements. The FSA expects insurers to assess material climate risks in their risk and solvency assessments and has identified significant shortcomings across the non-life sector. Insurers offering insurance-based investment products must also comply with sustainability-disclosure and product-governance requirements under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR).

Data protection is governed by the GDPR, supplemented by the Danish Data Protection Act (Databeskyttelsesloven). Insurance companies are also subject to confidentiality obligations under Section 82 of the Danish Insurance Business Act (forsikringsvirksomhedsloven), with violations subject to fines or imprisonment.

Together with Denmark’s implementation of the NIS2 Directive and DORA for financial entities, these requirements make cyber risks a significant governance and litigation exposure. Underwriters place greater emphasis on demonstrable controls and may adjust premiums, retentions and exclusions accordingly. Cyber incidents require fast, coordinated claims handling, including compliance with the GDPR’s 72-hour breach notification requirement.

In regulatory, coverage or compensation proceedings, the central issue is generally whether the organisation implemented security measures appropriate to the risk. Litigation strategy therefore depends on documented risk assessments, incident decisions, and consistent correspondence with regulators and insurers.

Denmark has traditionally been regarded as an attractive jurisdiction for data centre projects owing to its cool climate, high security of supply, large share of renewable energy, well-developed district heating network and strong rule of law. The Danish TSO Energinet began positioning Denmark as a future data centre hub as early as 2017, building high-voltage substations in preparation for connecting data centres to the transmission grid.

Insurance premiums tied to data centres are expected to rise. Data centres are no longer treated as conventional property risks but rather as highly technical assets central to national digital economies. It will be necessary for the insurance market to respond with specialist products, higher capacity, and more sophisticated underwriting standards.

Social media addiction and related mental health impacts have not yet given rise to a distinct category of claims in Denmark, though international litigation – particularly US class actions against platform operators – signals potential future exposure. Near-term Danish exposure is more likely to arise through established liability lines: media-liability policies may respond to defamation and privacy disputes amplified online; cyber and privacy cover may be engaged by data breaches or misuse of personal data; and professional-indemnity or D&O cover may be implicated by influencer campaigns or corporate communications.

Insurers are monitoring international developments – including regulatory action and US litigation outcomes – but specific underwriting exclusions or premium adjustments for social media-related mental health claims have not yet become standard in the Danish market.

Next-generation nuclear technologies create novel exposures that existing frameworks are not designed to address. In Denmark, uncertainty over whether the current limited-liability regime or the dormant 2008 amendments to Act No. 993 – which provide for unlimited operator liability and EUR700 million in mandatory insurance – would apply makes these risks difficult to price. Potential disputes may concern environmental remediation, latent injury, policy triggers, and recourse against technology vendors under the channelling principle.

Given Denmark’s lack of a domestic nuclear insurance pool, any deployment of small modular reactors would depend on international nuclear pools, foreign reinsurance, and potentially state-sponsored solutions.

The Danish Financial Supervisory Authority (Finanstilsynet) focuses on four key areas that influence insurer behaviour and dispute risk.

Consumer protection (god skik) is the most actively enforced area. Conduct-of-business rules require insurers to act honestly towards customers, provide clear pre-contractual disclosure, and avoid unfair terms restricting policyholder mobility. The Danish Financial Supervisory Authority has issued enforcement orders against pension providers with unjustified transfer restrictions, and disputes over inadequate disclosure remain a recurring source of complaints before the Danish Insurance Complaints Board (Ankenævnet for Forsikring).

Claims handling draws scrutiny through the complaint machinery. Common disputes involve insurers enforcing claim-notification deadlines that policyholders allege were not properly communicated, and inadequate advice at point of sale.

Operational resilience is a growing priority. Denmark implemented the EU Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) through Lov nr. 481/2024, requiring insurers to maintain IT risk management frameworks, report critical incidents to Finanstilsynet, and ensure audit rights over third-party IT providers.

ESG is entering the regulatory landscape through EU-level frameworks (SFDR, Solvency II delegated acts), though specific Danish enforcement actions targeting insurers on sustainability have not yet emerged. Consumer protection and claims handling present the highest current dispute risk, while DORA compliance and ESG integration represent emerging areas where enforcement is likely to intensify.

There have not been any specific legislative or regulatory developments that would significantly affect insurance coverage and insurance litigation in Denmark. However, there is a general trend towards more detailed and stringent regulatory requirements, both for financial institutions such as banks and in relation to product safety standards.

For financial institutions, this increased regulation may increase the exposure of management members to liability claims and potential fines, in turn triggering payouts under D&O insurance.

Similarly, in the area of product safety, new regulations can expose manufacturers and distributors to potential liability claims. An example of this is the General Product Safety Regulation (EU 2023/988) (GPSR), which became applicable on 13 December 2024. The GPSR introduces stricter requirements regarding the safety of products sold to consumers, which could have an impact on product liability insurers.