Article (in Estonian): O.-J. Luik, "Ohutusnõuded kahjukindlustuses" (Safety requirements in non-life insurance), Juridica 2016/10, pp. 727–735. Article page on Juridica (published 2016)
Research question
The Law of Obligations Act (võlaõigusseadus, VÕS) does not regulate safety requirements separately, unlike increase of risk. The Finnish Insurance Contracts Act and the Principles of European Insurance Contract Law (PEICL) do. Yet most Estonian insurers use safety requirements in their standard terms. The article asks what safety requirements are, how to distinguish them from risk exclusions and what effect breach has on the insurer's obligation to pay.
Main arguments
A safety requirement is a pre-loss behavioural obligation aimed at reducing risk. Where a term in substance describes conduct rather than the boundary of the risk, it is a safety requirement even if drafted as an exclusion. The insurer can rely on its breach only within VÕS § 452(2), that is where there is fault and causation. For common law readers, the closest analogues are warranties and conditions precedent, but the Estonian outcome is much closer to proportional reduction.
Relevance for insurers
The Estonian Supreme Court drew the same distinction in a judgment of December 2014: before assessing whether a term is void, one must establish whether it excludes the insured event or regulates a duty of care, and in the latter case how far the breach increased the risk.1 Judgments in 2024 and 2026, given after the article, confirmed the proportional approach.
Related pages
- Exclusions vs obligations
- Safety obligations and proportionality
- Duty of care and proportionality in Supreme Court practice
References
-
Supreme Court Civil Chamber judgment of 23.12.2014, 3-2-1-136-14, paras 13–14. https://www.riigikohus.ee/et/lahendid?asjaNr=3-2-1-136-14 ↩