Articles:
O.-J. Luik, M. Poola, M. Braun, "Poolte teavitamiskohustus enne kahjukindlustuslepingu sõlmimist" (The parties' duty to inform before concluding a non-life insurance contract), Juridica 2011/2, pp. 109–117 (in Estonian). Juridica (published 2011)
O.-J. Luik, M. Braun, "Significance of the Principles of European Insurance Contract Law for the pre-contractual information duty: experience of the Baltic States", Verslo ir teisės aktualijos / Current Issues of Business and Law 2011/2, pp. 192–215. DOI: 10.5200/1822-9530.2011.11 (published 2011)
Co-authors: M. Poola and Magnus Braun. Both articles address the same research topic, the first from the Estonian perspective and the second in a Baltic comparison.
Research question
How do the Law of Obligations Act (võlaõigusseadus, VÕS) and the Principles of European Insurance Contract Law (PEICL) differ on pre-contractual information duties, and how could Estonian law be improved on the PEICL model?
Main arguments
The policyholder's pre-contractual disclosure duty, which is not harmonised in the EU, is examined first, followed by the insurer's information duties under EU directives. The focus is on the consequences of breach: the insurer's right to adjust the premium where the policyholder culpably breached the duty; whether the policyholder must disclose facts already known to the insurer; and practical problems with the insurer's duty to explain complaint procedures to consumers.
Relevance for insurers
Under VÕS § 441(2) point 1, the insurer cannot withdraw from the contract if it knew of the undisclosed circumstance or the inaccuracy. In Estonian terminology, withdrawal (taganemine) ends the contract, whereas premium adjustment keeps cover in place; neither maps automatically onto the English concept of avoidance, so the legal effect should be spelled out in each case.