B-16-04 FINMA Circ. 16/4

When several clients are harmed in the same case of fraud, an important question arises in insurance: is this a single claim or several claims? In its ruling 4A_626/2024 of 21 March 2025, the Federal Court answered in the affirmative. It upheld an arbitration award that denied a bank any insurance coverage on the grounds that each claim by an aggrieved customer had to be considered a separate claim, subject in particular to a separate deductible. The ruling highlights the[...]

Was FINMA, and subsequently the Federal Administrative Court, right to refuse dividend payments by an insurance company in connection with the approval of a liquidation plan and a modified business plan on the grounds that the company had failed to comply with its obligation to cooperate with the supervisory authority? This is the question that the Federal Supreme Court had to answer in a ruling handed down on 18 February (2C_94/2024). The case in question concerns an insurance company that[...]

The Federal Administrative Court (FAT) has confirmed that comparis.ch AG (Comparis) qualifies as an insurance intermediary within the meaning of Art. 40 para. 1 ISA on the basis of the services it offers and must therefore be entered in FINMA's public register of unrelated intermediaries (ruling B-5886/2023 of 5 July 2024). In September 2023, FINMA decided that Comparis was an insurance intermediary within the meaning of Art. 40 ISA and ordered it to be entered in the register of non-related[...]

In a recent ruling, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court upheld an insurance company's refusal to cover losses of more than 35 million dollars suffered by a Swiss bank forced to compensate unhappy investors at the end of legal proceedings in Dubai (ruling 4A_440/2022 of 16 November 2023). A bank established in Switzerland has a subsidiary in Dubai, company E. The subsidiary is subject to supervision by the Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA) and is authorised to provide certain financial services,[...]