# Estonian Supreme Court: notification, proof and due date

URL: https://insurancelawestonia.ee/supreme-court/insured-event-notification-and-proof/
Author: Dr Olavi-Jüri Luik, Partner, Head of Insurance Law, attorney at law (Advokaadibüroo WIDEN OÜ)
Last updated: 2026-11-09

> Estonian Supreme Court (Riigikohus) case law on the insured event, notification, proof and when the indemnity falls due, in English.

This page is part of the [overview of Estonian Supreme Court insurance case law](https://insurancelawestonia.ee/supreme-court). It collects 6 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](https://insurancelawestonia.ee/supreme-court#how-to-use-this-overview).

## Synthesis

The policyholder must prove that the insured event occurred, but VÕS § 448(2) limits the evidence the insurer may demand to what can reasonably be expected of the policyholder. Standard terms restricting the means of proof (e.g. documents or inspection only) are unreasonably detrimental to consumers. Determining the amount of loss is the insurer's obligation (VÕS § 489), which does not shift the burden of proof. The indemnity falls due when a reasonable period for handling the claim has elapsed (VÕS § 450(1)); pending criminal proceedings do not justify delay, and an insurer that refused without good reason is in default even if the amount of loss is established only in court. In litigation the insurer may raise defences not mentioned in its letter of refusal.

## Decisions

### RKTKo 10.04.2001, 3-2-1-56-01

*Judgment* · no paragraph numbering · notice of loss; written notice; insured objects · *pre-VÕS law*

Under the contract the policyholder had to notify loss in writing within 14 days. A tractor and a timber trailer were insured as separate objects; notice of the tractor loss did not cover the trailer, so the refusal regarding the trailer was upheld. The decision applies the pre-VÕS Insurance Act; under current law the consequences of breaching a notification duty must be tested against VÕS § 452(2).

[Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)](https://www.riigikohus.ee/et/lahendid?asjaNr=3-2-1-56-01)

### RKTKo 17.11.2004, 3-2-1-131-04

*Judgment* · paras 19-23 · property insurance; demolition and clearance costs; default; unjustified refusal · *pre-VÕS law*

To recover demolition and clearance costs their amount must be proved; once the work has been done, the loss is the actual cost, not an estimate. On default, the Supreme Court rejected the appellate court's view that an insurer which handled the claim and reduced the indemnity to zero was not in default merely because the amount of loss was established only in court; on rehearing, the court had to establish which documents had been submitted to the insurer with the payment request and whether the lack of any document prevented payment, and to assess fault under the then Civil Code (TsK) § 227 (paras 21-23).

[Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)](https://www.riigikohus.ee/et/lahendid?asjaNr=3-2-1-131-04)

### RKTKo 29.11.2004, 3-2-1-120-04

*Judgment* · paras 11-15 · motor own-damage; unauthorised taking; establishing the insured event; surrender of keys and documents

The court must first establish whether the insured event (unauthorised taking or theft of the vehicle) occurred and only then assess whether the insurer is entitled to refuse. The appellate court had dismissed the claim under a term requiring surrender of the registration certificate and all keys without deciding whether the vehicle had been taken at all. The decision confirms the logical order of establishing the insured event before examining grounds for refusal.

[Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)](https://www.riigikohus.ee/et/lahendid?asjaNr=3-2-1-120-04)

### RKTKo 28.11.2007, 3-2-1-106-07

*Judgment* · paras 10-12 · home insurance; theft; burden of proof; VÕS § 489; VÕS § 42(3)(11); VÕS § 448(2)

The stolen items had been listed separately in the policy with individual sums insured, which affected the allocation of the burden of proof. VÕS § 489 obliges the insurer to determine the amount of loss without delay but does not govern the burden of proof. A standard term excluding property whose existence is not proved by inspection, remains or documents restricts the consumer's right to use other evidence (e.g. witnesses) and is unreasonably detrimental under VÕS § 42(3)(11); VÕS § 448(2) likewise limits evidential demands to what can reasonably be expected.

[Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)](https://www.riigikohus.ee/et/lahendid?asjaNr=3-2-1-106-07)

### RKTKo 07.11.2012, 3-2-1-133-12

*Judgment* · paras 23-26 · fire in a building; agreed insurable value; VAT; maturity; criminal proceedings

The sum insured stated in the policy is not in itself an agreed insurable value within VÕS § 480(1); where it differs materially from the actual value, the actual value applies (VÕS § 480(3)). Reinstatement cost includes VAT because it is presumed that the destroyed building will be rebuilt; if reinstatement is not undertaken, that may change. The indemnity falls due under VÕS § 450(1) and § 82(3) once a reasonable handling period has passed, and pending criminal proceedings did not justify postponing payment until their conclusion.

[Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)](https://www.riigikohus.ee/et/lahendid?asjaNr=3-2-1-133-12)

### RKTKo 14.03.2014, 3-2-1-171-13

*Judgment* · paras 10, 13-15 · motor own-damage; theft abroad; reasons for refusal; VÕS § 448(2); report to the police

In litigation the insurer may raise defences not mentioned in its decision to refuse. When proving the insured event, VÕS § 448(2) must be applied alongside the conditions: evidence may be demanded only to the extent it can reasonably be expected of the policyholder. The courts had not explained how reporting the theft to the police three days later affected the occurrence or the establishment of the insured event; release for intent (VÕS § 452(1)) must be distinguished from contractual breaches.

[Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)](https://www.riigikohus.ee/et/lahendid?asjaNr=3-2-1-171-13)

## Related pages

- [Supreme Court of Estonia: overview of insurance case law](https://insurancelawestonia.ee/supreme-court)
- [Previous topic](https://insurancelawestonia.ee/supreme-court/safety-requirements-and-proportionality)
- [Next topic](https://insurancelawestonia.ee/supreme-court/intent-exclusions-and-scope-of-cover)
- [Estonian insurance contract law: overview](https://insurancelawestonia.ee/estonian-insurance-contract-law)
- [Glossary of Estonian insurance terms](https://insurancelawestonia.ee/glossary)