The High Court has allowed Mapfre España to be joined in place of Mapfre Asistencia in a personal injuries case arising from an alleged fall in a rented Tenerife apartment. It also refused the apartment owner’s application to set aside service of the proceedings, finding the plaintiff’s consumer contract claim against him reasonably capable of proof.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Garrett Simons on 30 May 2025, concerns preliminary jurisdiction applications, not a trial of the injury claim. The plaintiff alleges that water leaked from a defective air conditioning unit and caused her to slip in the apartment. No finding was made on how the accident happened or whether anyone was liable.
The plaintiff relied on EU rules concerning liability insurance and consumer contracts to argue that the Irish courts could hear claims against the defendants, who are domiciled in Spain and Poland. The court said the plaintiff could not use the insurance rules to bring the apartment owner into the case as an insured party. It considered separately whether the owner was party to a consumer contract with the plaintiff.
On the proposed insurer substitution, documents indicated that Mapfre España had insured the apartment and that cover had been renewed for a period beginning in November 2016. The court found the plaintiff’s direct claim against Mapfre España reasonably capable of proof and ordered its joinder in place of Mapfre Asistencia. It did not decide whether the policy covered holiday accommodation or claims brought outside Spain. Mapfre España may apply to set aside the joinder and contest jurisdiction, and the plaintiff must apply to amend the personal injuries summons.
The court’s decision made Mapfre Asistencia’s own application to set aside service moot. The judge said that, had it been necessary to decide that application, it would have succeeded: the evidence pointed to Mapfre España, not Mapfre Asistencia, as the apartment’s insurer.
The apartment owner argued that the rental contract was with lease management company ENA Financial SL, acting as an independent contractor. The court found that the management agreement made the owner’s claim reasonably capable of proof: the company had no apparent ownership interest in the apartment, while the owner retained the rental income after commission and responsibility for rental-related tax. The court refused his application to set aside service. It did not determine liability for the alleged accident.
The judge gave a provisional view that Mapfre Asistencia should recover its motion and prior proceedings costs from the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff should recover the costs of the owner’s unsuccessful motion. No costs order was proposed on the Mapfre España joinder motion. The case was listed for 19 June 2025 for submissions on costs and the final form of the order.