Introduction
Workers’ compensation insurance plays a critical role in protecting employers from financial exposure arising from workplace accidents and occupational injuries. In the United Arab Emirates, employers are often required to compensate injured employees pursuant to judgments issued by Labour Courts and Civil Courts. The question frequently arises as to whether an insurer is obligated to reimburse the insured employer for compensation amounts, legal costs, court fees, and execution expenses incurred following such judgments.
A recent decision issued by the Insurance Disputes Resolution and Settlement Committee (Sanadak) offers important clarification regarding the scope of an insurer’s indemnity obligations and the enforceability of arbitration clauses contained within insurance policies. The Committee ordered an insurer to reimburse the insured employer a total amount of AED 721,854.19 after determining that the claim fell squarely within the coverage provided under the insurance policy.
This decision is particularly noteworthy because it addresses several recurring issues in insurance disputes, including policy interpretation, limitation periods, arbitration clauses, and reimbursement of judicially awarded compensation.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose from a workers’ compensation insurance policy issued to an employer covering employees against injuries sustained during the course of employment.
During the policy period, an employee suffered a serious workplace injury on 9 June 2021, resulting in hospitalization and multiple surgical procedures. The insured employer covered the employee’s treatment expenses, travel arrangements, and repatriation costs after medical clearance was obtained.
Subsequently, the injured employee initiated legal proceedings seeking compensation for the workplace injury. Following a series of judicial proceedings, including appeals and further applications, the courts ultimately increased the compensation payable to the injured employee.
The total compensation awarded reached AED 600,000, in addition to various judicial fees, execution expenses, and related costs.
The insured employer ultimately paid AED 619,579.19 pursuant to the court judgments and execution proceedings and incurred additional court and execution-related expenses. Despite notifying the insurer and requesting reimbursement, the insurer declined payment, leading the insured to file a complaint before the Insurance Disputes Resolution Committee.
The Insurer’s Defences
The insurer raised several objections in an attempt to avoid liability.
Arbitration Clause Objection
The insurer argued that the dispute should not be heard by the Committee because the insurance policy allegedly contained an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be referred to arbitration.
Limitation Defence
The insurer further argued that the claim was time-barred and that the insured had lost its right to pursue recovery due to the passage of time.
Merits Defence
On the merits, the insurer contended that it had already fulfilled its obligations by paying compensation relating to the employee’s permanent partial disability and covering medical treatment expenses.
Accordingly, it argued that no further amounts were payable.
Committee’s Position on Arbitration Clauses in Insurance Policies
One of the most important aspects of the decision concerns the treatment of arbitration clauses in insurance contracts.
The Committee rejected the insurer’s jurisdictional objection. It referred to the applicable regulations governing insurance dispute resolution and emphasized its authority to review documents, records, evidence, and disputes without being restricted by the procedural framework applicable to ordinary civil litigation.
More importantly, the Committee relied on Article 1028 of the UAE Civil Transactions Law, which provides that an arbitration clause in an insurance policy is invalid unless it is contained in a separate agreement distinct from the general printed policy conditions.
The Committee found that the insurer failed to produce evidence demonstrating the existence of a separate arbitration agreement. Consequently, the arbitration clause was deemed ineffective and the objection was dismissed.
This finding reinforces a long-established principle of UAE insurance law that arbitration clauses cannot simply be embedded within standard-form insurance policies. For such clauses to be enforceable, the insured must expressly agree to arbitration through a separate and specific agreement.
Committee’s Position on Limitation Periods
The Committee also rejected the insurer’s limitation defence.
After reviewing the judicial decisions and relevant documents, the Committee noted that the final court judgment relied upon by the insured had been issued on 23 January 2024.
Since less than three years had elapsed from the relevant date, the Committee concluded that the claim remained within the applicable limitation period and therefore could proceed.
This aspect of the decision highlights the importance of determining the relevant triggering event when calculating limitation periods in insurance disputes. Rather than focusing exclusively on the date of the workplace accident, the Committee examined the chronology of judicial proceedings and the resulting financial liability borne by the insured.
Interpretation of the Insurance Policy
The Committee carefully examined the wording of the insurance policy.
The policy provided that if an employee suffered bodily injury or occupational illness arising out of and during the course of employment, the insurer would indemnify the insured employer for all amounts that the employer became legally obligated to pay.
Importantly, the policy also extended coverage to legal costs, expenses, and amounts incurred in defending compensation claims.
Having reviewed the court judgments and execution files, the Committee concluded that the compensation paid by the employer fell within the scope of the policy coverage.
Accordingly, the insurer was contractually obligated to reimburse the insured for the amounts paid pursuant to the judicial decisions.
The Committee therefore ordered the insurer to pay AED 721,854.19, representing the compensation, judicial fees, execution costs, and related expenses incurred by the insured employer.
Recovery of Litigation and Execution Costs
Another important aspect of the decision is the recognition that insurance indemnity may extend beyond the principal compensation amount.
The Committee accepted that the insured had incurred substantial additional expenses arising from court proceedings, execution measures, appeals, and related judicial processes.
Because the policy language expressly contemplated reimbursement of costs incurred in responding to compensation claims, these amounts formed part of the recoverable loss.
This serves as a reminder that employers should carefully review policy wording, as coverage may extend not only to compensation awards but also to legal defence costs, court fees, and enforcement expenses.
Request for Additional Compensation
Although the Committee ordered reimbursement of the insured’s losses, it declined to award additional compensation for dispute-related expenses where sufficient evidence had not been produced to establish entitlement.
The Committee relied on the general principle that the burden of proof lies upon the party asserting a claim.
Since the claimant had not sufficiently proven the additional amount sought, that request was rejected.
This part of the ruling reinforces the necessity of maintaining detailed documentary evidence when seeking reimbursement of legal costs and ancillary expenses.
Final Decision
The Committee ultimately ordered the insurer to:
- Pay AED 721,854.19 to the insured employer;
- Bear the applicable fees and costs; and
- Reject all other claims not supported by sufficient evidence.
Key Legal Takeaways
This decision provides several important lessons for policyholders and insurers operating in the UAE.
1. Insurance Coverage May Extend Beyond Compensation Awards
Insurers may be required to reimburse not only compensation awarded to injured employees but also associated litigation and execution expenses where the policy wording supports such recovery.
2. Arbitration Clauses Must Comply with UAE Law
Arbitration clauses contained within standard insurance policy conditions may be unenforceable unless incorporated through a separate agreement satisfying the requirements of UAE law.
3. Limitation Periods Depend on the Particular Facts
Limitation period defences will be closely scrutinized, and the relevant trigger date may depend upon the timing of judgments and the crystallisation of liability rather than merely the date of the original incident.
4. Policy Wording Remains Critical
Courts and dispute resolution committees will focus heavily on the actual wording of the insurance contract. Clear indemnity provisions covering legal liabilities and defence costs can significantly strengthen an insured’s recovery claim.
5. Documentary Evidence Is Essential
Policyholders seeking reimbursement should preserve:
- Court judgments;
- Execution records;
- Invoices;
- Payment confirmations;
- Legal expense documentation; and
- Correspondence with insurers.
These documents are often decisive in establishing entitlement.
Conclusion
The Sanadak Insurance Disputes Resolution Committee’s decision represents an important affirmation of the principle that insurers must honour their contractual indemnity obligations where an insured employer becomes legally liable for workplace injury compensation.
By rejecting unsupported arbitration objections, dismissing limitation arguments, and enforcing the policy’s indemnity provisions, the Committee reinforced the protective purpose of workers’ compensation insurance within the UAE legal framework.
The ruling serves as a valuable precedent for employers, insurers, legal practitioners, and risk management professionals dealing with workplace injury claims and insurance recovery disputes in the UAE. It demonstrates that where policy wording clearly provides indemnity, insurers may be compelled to reimburse compensation awards, court fees, execution expenses, and related costs arising from workplace injury litigation.
For businesses, the case serves as a timely reminder that insurance policies should be reviewed carefully to ensure that indemnity provisions, claims procedures, and dispute resolution mechanisms provide the intended protection when workplace accidents occur.
If you require further clarification or legal assistance concerning the matters discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Kh legal Advocates & Legal Consultants LLC. Our lawyers would be happy to assist you.
Authors:
