Facts
The insurance company B. (claimant, respondent) concluded a reinsurance contract in 2011 with company A. Ltd. (defendant, appellant) and other reinsurers. This contract contained a jurisdiction clause in favor of the courts of Peru as well as a choice of law clause in favor of Peruvian law. In 2022, the claimant was ordered by an arbitral award to pay approximately 14 million US dollars to the electricity company C. SA under the main insurance contract. The claimant considers that the defendant is obliged to reimburse it at least 4.6 million US dollars under the reinsurance contract. In 2022, the claimant filed a request with the Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich to obtain access to the defendant's latest management and audit reports, in order to assess the relevance of continuing the proceedings in Peru, the possible enforcement of a Peruvian decision in Switzerland and the possibility of asserting other claims, given the indications of the defendant's financial difficulties.Considerations
5.1 The material scope of a jurisdiction clause must be determined by way of interpretation. When the main contract contains both a jurisdiction clause and a choice of law clause, and the parties have not agreed that…