Dutch High Court Confirms Limitation Period Begins with Claim Against the Insured

The Dutch Supreme Court issued a ruling (ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1686) clarifying that, for liability policies, the three‑year limitation period in Article 7:942(1) DCC begins once the insured has been expressly held liable by the claimant. A limitation‑interrupting notice or awareness of an incident will not suffice.

Background

An employee suffered a traffic accident in 2009. In 2014, the employee’s lawyer sent the employer a letter intended to interrupt any running limitation and to preserve rights but without explicitly asserting liability. 

In 2018, the lawyer sent a follow-up letter holding the employer liable under Article 7:611 DCC (i.e. good employment practice). The employer notified the insurer of this letter. The employer settled with the employee and sought reimbursement from the insurer. The insurers argued among other things that the employer's claim under the policy was time barred because the three-year period had already begun in 2009, or alternatively in 2014, and therefore the claim under the policy was time-barred before it was notified in 2018.

Legal context

Under Dutch law, there are several limitation periods, depending on the nature of the claim. In relation to claims under an insurance policy, the relevant provision is art. 7:942 Dutch Civil Code. The following is a translation of Paragraph 1 of that article:

A claim against the insurer to claim the payment of an insurance payment becomes time-barred upon the expiration of three years after the day following the one on which the insured has become aware that this benefit is due and claimable.

Supreme Court’s decision

The district court and the court of appeal both rejected the insurers' claim because the limitation period did not start running until 2018. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions and ruled that the condition of due and claimable (opeisbaar) in art. 7:942 DCC means that an insured needs to be held liable by the claimant before the limitation period starts running.

This conclusion followed from the parliamentary history in which the legislator removed a second sentence for liability insurance as redundant from art. 7:942 paragraph 1 precisely because the concept of "due and claimable” already hinges on a prior claim. Applying that rule, the Supreme Court determined that neither the accident in 2009 nor the interruption letter of 2014 represents the beginning of a limitation period in the meaning of art. 7:942 DCC. The first true claim asserting liability was from 2018. The three-year period started on the day after the date of that letter, and the employer's claim under the policy was not time-barred.

Practical implications 

The question whether a claim under the policy is time-barred will rarely be a standalone issue. In most cases, other factors will also play a role such as insured's statutory or contractual obligation to notify an insurer of the materialisation of the risk in a timely fashion and the obligation to disclose all material information prior to inception of the policy. This case, however, illustrates that potential claims known to an insured can lead to a claim under a policy years later. 

The case also emphasises that the limitation period for damage claims (usually five years after the claimant becomes aware of the loss and liable party) deviates from the limitation period for claims under an insurance policy (three years after the insured becomes aware that this benefit is due and claimable), and that this difference can be relevant. If a claim is made but not notified under the policy, the claim under the policy can be time barred before the underlying claim is. This requires careful consideration in practice.

Additionally, this case highlights that the wording and context is highly relevant for the interpretation of letters asserting liability and/or interrupting a limitation period. In this case, the 2014 letter was ruled to be intended to interrupt the limitation period without asserting liability, but another outcome is also possible depending on the wording of the letter. 

Another possible complicating factor is when the liability policy contains some form of mitigation cover, which is already triggered before an actual claim is made. In that case, it will be a matter of interpreting the policy and the underlying claim to determine whether the three-year limitation period begins once the insured becomes aware of the fact or letter that triggers the mitigation cover.

For more information on the Supreme Court’s decision, contact your CMS client partner or the CMS experts who wrote this article.