This page is part of the overview of Estonian Supreme Court insurance case law. It collects 5 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
VÕS §§ 443-446 prohibit the policyholder from increasing the insured risk and require notice of any increase. The Supreme Court has developed two stable principles. First, the insurer must prove not only the breach but also whether and to what extent the breach increased the probability of the insured event; the court must make a reasoned finding on that effect. Second, release is in principle proportionate (VÕS § 445(2)): full release is possible only where the risk increased solely because of the policyholder's breach and the breach was the only cause of the insured event (e.g. drink-driving where no other cause exists). Where the insured event was caused by a third party, a complete refusal is generally excluded.
Decisions
RKTKo 20.11.2002, 3-2-1-127-02
Judgment · paras 8-10 · property insurance; reconstruction; change in degree of risk; form of notice · pre-VÕS law
Converting a building's attic into a third floor did not change the insured object but amounted to an increase in the degree of risk as defined in the general conditions, of which the insurer had to be notified. Since the parties had not agreed on the form of notice, oral notice sufficed. The decision applies the law and conditions in force before the VÕS took effect, but its point about the absence of formal requirements for notice is consistent with later case law.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 09.04.2008, 3-2-1-17-08
Judgment · paras 11-12 · motor own-damage; speeding; VÕS §§ 444, 445(2), 452(2)(2); gross negligence exclusion
A lorry driver significantly exceeded the urban speed limit and left the road. The Supreme Court directed that, to apply VÕS § 445(2) and § 452(2)(2), the court must establish whether speeding constituted a breach of VÕS § 444 and whether and to what extent it increased the possibility of the insured risk, including the technical mechanism of the accident. A general condition excluding cover for gross negligence is a standard term whose validity must be reviewed under VÕS § 42.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 01.04.2009, 3-2-1-10-09
Judgment · paras 12-14 · motor own-damage; drunk driver; burden of proof; full release; analogy with LKindlS
The insurer must prove whether and to what extent the breach of the contract affected the occurrence of the accident; the policyholder is not required to prove other causes. The chamber accepted that the insurer may be fully released where the risk increased solely because of the breach: drink-driving may be the direct and only cause of the accident where neither another driver's conduct nor any other external factor contributed. The terms of voluntary own-damage insurance cannot be construed by analogy with the recourse provisions of compulsory motor liability insurance.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 26.11.2014, 3-2-1-112-14
Judgment · paras 9, 11, 13-14 · accident insurance; intoxication; VÕS § 552; reduction of indemnity
The insured fell from a building while intoxicated. The Supreme Court held that in accident insurance VÕS § 552 governs the burden of proof, so the insured did not have to prove that nothing other than intoxication caused the fall. If intoxication was not the sole cause of the accident, the insurer cannot refuse payment entirely but may reduce the indemnity according to the extent to which intoxication contributed. Under the principle of good faith, however, the insured cannot rely on a cause other than their own intoxication if the insurer proves that the accident happened in surroundings that, reasonably assessed, posed no risk to a sober person; the insured must then prove that another external circumstance caused the accident (para 13). The court must also assess whether the intoxication clause became part of the contract as a standard term and is valid.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 31.03.2020, 2-16-14152/67
Judgment · paras 11, 13-14 · home insurance; fire; building not permanently occupied; VÕS §§ 443-444; damage caused by a third party
The insurer refused to pay for a fire because the insured house was not permanently occupied. The Supreme Court held that the courts had to explain how the absence of permanent occupation increased the fire risk (VÕS §§ 443 and 444; § 442(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure (tsiviilkohtumenetluse seadustik, TsMS)). The chamber added that where the fire was caused by a third party it cannot normally be concluded that the risk increased solely because of the policyholder's breach, so a complete refusal is generally excluded.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)