This page is part of the overview of Estonian Supreme Court insurance case law. It collects 4 decisions of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (Riigikohus) on this topic, in chronological order, with a short synthesis of the direction of the case law. The summaries are written in our own words; the judgments themselves are available in Estonian only. Abbreviations and citation conventions are explained on the overview page.
Synthesis
The Supreme Court's case law on the formation stage is limited in number but consistent in its message: the insurer bears the risk where the policy or the terms deviate from what the policyholder applied for and the insurer has not drawn specific attention to that deviation in the manner required by statute (§ 436 of the Law of Obligations Act (võlaõigusseadus, VÕS)). The start of cover is determined by the policy read together with the statute, not by the insurer's later interpretation. A breach of the pre-contractual duty of disclosure (VÕS § 440 et seq.) cannot be recast by the insurer as underinsurance; its legal consequences must be derived from the disclosure provisions themselves. There is as yet no comprehensive Supreme Court ruling on VÕS §§ 441 and 442 (withdrawal and amendment of the contract for breach of the disclosure duty); analysis in this area therefore relies mainly on the statute and on legal literature.
Decisions
RKTKo 02.11.2012, 3-2-1-97-12
Judgment · paras 9-11 · motor third-party liability; start of cover; retroactive cover; VÕS § 437
The dispute concerned whether compulsory motor liability cover began at the start of the day on which the new contract was concluded or only on the following day. Having regard to the policy data and to the expiry of the previous contract, the Supreme Court accepted that cover could begin retroactively at the start of the day of conclusion and rejected the insurer's reading that VÕS § 437 required the following day to be treated as the start. The decision shows that the temporal scope of cover follows primarily from the policy and from the special statute.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 07.11.2012, 3-2-1-125-12
Judgment · paras 9-10 · deviation of the policy from the application; VÕS § 436; special condition; beneficiary
A special condition entered in the policy excluding loss caused by defective construction work or materials binds the policyholder under VÕS § 436 only if, when issuing the policy, the insurer separately and in the statutory form drew attention to the deviation and to the 14-day period for objection. Merely highlighting the clause on the policy does not replace that notice. The chamber also confirmed that where the contract names a beneficiary (here a bank), the insurance indemnity is payable to the beneficiary under VÕS § 425(1), not to the policyholder.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 19.12.2018, 2-17-284/42
Judgment · paras 16, 18, 25-31 · insurance of leased assets; authority; contract concluded without authority; consumer
The lessor and an affiliated broker concluded an insurance contract for the leased vehicle in the lessee's name even after the lessee had insured the car elsewhere and revoked the authority. The Supreme Court held that under § 126 of the General Part of the Civil Code Act (tsiviilseadustiku üldosa seadus, TsÜS) an authority may be revoked at any time and that restricting the right of revocation to the lessee's detriment is impermissible; an insurance contract concluded without authority does not bind the lessee unless ratified. Premiums paid under it are recoverable under the rules on unjust enrichment, and the proper defendant depends on who actually received the payment.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 06.11.2024, 2-22-18155/63
Judgment · paras 10-14 · underinsurance; reinstatement value; disclosure duty; VÕS § 440
The core of the judgment concerns underinsurance (see topic 9), but the chamber also stressed that if the policyholder gives incorrect information about the size of the building when the contract is concluded, this does not automatically turn the situation into underinsurance. Such misinformation may be legally relevant as a breach of the disclosure duty under VÕS § 440 et seq., and its consequences (including the insurer's remedies) must be derived from those provisions. A circumstance is presumed material if the insurer expressly asked about it in a form reproducible in writing.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)