A British truck driver lost his leg after a forklift accident in Spain - and the resulting insurance fight has landed AXA's Spanish arm in an English courtroom.
In a ruling handed down on May 6, 2026, the High Court in London decided that AXA Seguros Generales must defend a personal injury claim in England, even though the accident happened in Spain, the policy was written under Spanish law, and the insured was Spanish. For insurers and brokers handling cross-border risks, the decision in Fox v Steve Fellows Road Haulage Services Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 1054 (KB) is a useful read - and a quiet warning.
The case began on February 9, 2023, when James Fox, a British HGV driver employed by an English haulage company, drove to a warehouse in Onda, Spain, to collect ceramic tiles. While he was there, the Second Defendant, Francisco Manuel Museros López, drove a forklift truck into him. Fox suffered a severe crush and degloving injury to his left foot. Surgeons in Spain tried to save it. Seven days later, after he was flown home, doctors in the UK determined the foot could not be saved and amputated his leg below the knee.
Fox sued three parties: his English employer, the Spanish warehouse owner, and his insurer, AXA Seguros Generales. The claim against his employer had to be heard in England - any Spanish claim was time-barred. The claims against the warehouse owner and AXA, governed by Spanish law, were a different matter. Both argued the case belonged in Spain.
Mrs Justice Heather Williams disagreed. Splitting the case across two countries, she said, would create a real risk of inconsistent judgments on overlapping issues - warehouse safety, contributory negligence, who was to blame for what. England, she ruled, was "clearly and distinctly the appropriate forum."
The more eye-catching detail for the insurance trade sits inside the policy itself. AXA's cover came with an overall limit of €300,000 per claim and a sub-limit of €150,000 per victim. Fox's side argued the sub-limit shouldn't stand. Under Article 3 of the Spanish Insurance Contract Act, restrictive clauses like that need to be specifically accepted and signed by the policyholder. They pointed to a Spanish Supreme Court ruling from November 2025 backing them up. They also flagged Article 74 of the same Act, which can leave insurers paying legal and expert costs without a cap unless the policy says otherwise.
The judge didn't decide those points - she didn't need to at this stage. But they are now live issues heading toward trial.
For underwriters and brokers, the takeaways are practical. Sub-limits in Spanish-law policies need clear, documented policyholder acceptance or they may not hold. Foreign insurers can find themselves in English courts when there's an English co-defendant. And defense costs may run higher than the indemnity limit suggests.
The case will now move forward in London - with AXA at the table.
