In the media: rules that are broken in insurance (2012)

Original (in Estonian): Kadri Järve, Juuli Laanemets, "Reeglid, mida kindlustuses rikutakse" (Rules that are broken in insurance), Raamatupidaja.ee, 2 October 2012. Read the article

Date note: the date of this post (2 October 2012) is the date of the original publication. This English summary was written for this website in 2026.

The Estonian business portal Raamatupidaja.ee reported on Olavi-Jüri Luik's talk at the 2012 Äripäev insurance conference, given while he was an attorney at the law firm LEXTAL.

Key points

A policyholder must cooperate reasonably in claims handling, but the insurer cannot demand evidence that cannot reasonably be expected. Where the policyholder's own conduct makes it impossible to verify the original situation, the claim may be at risk. Standard terms requiring documents that have no bearing on the loss are likely void. Postponing payment until criminal or misdemeanour proceedings end is generally not justified, and losses caused by late payment (such as lost profit) may be claimed in addition to statutory interest. For unpaid premiums, the statutory warning procedure must be followed; termination fees were in his view not permissible.

What has changed since

The core positions still hold. When the insurer's performance falls due is governed by § 450 of the Law of Obligations Act (võlaõigusseadus, VÕS): if the assessment drags on, the policyholder may, two months after notifying the insured event, ask the insurer why the assessment has not been completed, and the insurer's performance falls due if the insurer does not answer within one month (§ 450 lg 2). Separately, if the assessment has not been completed within one month of the notification and the insured event has been established, the policyholder may claim an advance of the minimum amount the insurer would have to pay in the circumstances; that one-month period is suspended while completion is prevented by circumstances attributable to the policyholder (§ 450 lg 3). The advance therefore does not have to wait for the two-month request. The Estonian Supreme Court has confirmed that pending criminal proceedings do not in themselves justify delaying payment.¹ VÕS § 448(2) limits the evidence an insurer may demand, and VÕS § 458 governs late payment of subsequent premiums.

Related pages

• Notification and post-loss duties
• Premium
• Claims handling practice in Estonia

References