Original (in Estonian): ""Impulss": kindlustusvaidlus jättis Pae tänava maja kolmeks aastaks katuseta" ("Impulss": insurance dispute left the Pae Street building without a roof for three years), ERR, 22 April 2025. Read and watch on ERR
Later coverage (in Estonian): "LÕPUTU ÕUDUS SAAB LÄBI? Pae 25 maja kindlustusraha asja hakatakse kohtus sisuliselt arutama uuel aastal" (The Pae 25 insurance money case will be heard on the merits next year), Õhtuleht, 28 October 2026. Read in Õhtuleht
Date note: the date of this post (22 April 2025) is the date of the original publication. This English summary was written for this website in 2026.
ETV's "Impulss" examined the insurance dispute that followed the fire of 7 April 2022 at a 77-flat apartment building on Pae Street in Lasnamäe, Tallinn. The building was insured by the apartment association (korteriühistu). Olavi-Jüri Luik appeared in the programme as the attorney (vandeadvokaat) representing the insurer.
The legal issues
According to the sources, the apartment association sued the insurer for the insurance indemnity in spring 2023. The dispute concerned two related questions.
Whether the insurer is obliged to pay. As reported, the insurer relied on breaches of fire-safety requirements, in particular the absence of fire compartments and earlier reconstruction work in the building. In Luik's words, these breaches gave grounds for avoiding the insurance contract (kindlustuslepingu tühistamine). The role of the policyholder's duties was therefore at the centre of the dispute: whether, and with what legal consequence, the insured building's non-compliance with safety requirements affects the insurer's obligation.
The extent of the insurer's obligation. The parties assessed the cost of restoring the building differently: about EUR 5 million according to the association, roughly half of that according to the insurer as reported. The programme also covered the extent of demolition needed and the cause of the fire, on which the Rescue Board and an independent expert reached different conclusions.
Olavi-Jüri Luik's points
Luik explained that the demolition was necessary for structural reasons, relying on the conclusion of a state-recognised expert that the damaged flats could not be restored because of moisture and mould risk. On fire safety, his point was that the breaches had been serious and, in his words, gave grounds "for avoiding the insurance contract"; had fire compartments been in place, the loss would in his view have been limited to around EUR 600,000. He clarified that the insurer had not filed a counterclaim against the association. On timing, he said the case could take at least another year at first instance and several more years if appealed.
Legal status
When the programme was broadcast on 22 April 2025, the case was pending and no judgment had been given. According to Õhtuleht's report of 28 October 2026, the court had by then held preliminary hearings, the taking of evidence and witness testimony had not yet begun, and the hearing on the merits was planned for the following year. The dispute was therefore still unresolved in October 2026.
Why it matters
The case shows why, in property insurance of apartment buildings, it is important to distinguish between the insurer's different defences, because their legal consequences differ. Avoidance makes the contract void retroactively; breach of a safety obligation may lead to release from the obligation to perform or to a reduction of the indemnity only under the statutory conditions, including causation and proportionality. A third question is the extent of the loss: restoration cost, demolition and price increases. Which of these applies in a particular dispute is for the court to decide.