This page is part of the overview of Estonian Supreme Court insurance case law. It collects 7 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
In liability insurance the Supreme Court consistently distinguishes compulsory from voluntary cover. In compulsory liability insurance the injured party has a direct claim against the insurer under VÕS § 521(1), and the insurer may not rely against the injured party on its release vis-à-vis the policyholder (VÕS § 521(5)); that protection does not, however, extend to situations where under the contract there is no insured event at all (e.g. an exclusion of intentional breach) or where the contract has been avoided. The statement on avoidance comes from a case on the compulsory liability insurance of a trustee in bankruptcy and must not be generalised to all compulsory insurance: in motor liability insurance, EU law generally prevents the insurer from invoking against the injured party the invalidity of the policy resulting from the policyholder's pre-contractual misrepresentation (CJEU C-287/16, Fidelidade; C-236/23, Matmut, paras 47 and 66, subject to a narrow abuse-of-rights exception). Matmut confirms that this protection can also cover an injured passenger who was the policyholder. In voluntary liability insurance there is no direct claim; VÕS § 518 merely gives a preference in the policyholder's bankruptcy. Under VÕS § 513 the 'event' is the occurrence giving rise to liability, and indirect intent suffices for the insurer's release; the contract may extend the grounds of release.
Decisions
RKTKo 15.05.2002, 3-2-1-49-02
Judgment · paras 12-13 · notary's liability insurance; third party's right; insurance period; notice · pre-VÕS law
The Supreme Court rejected the view that the insurer was released towards the injured party because the policyholder had not proved notifying the claim within the insurance period: no such ground for release followed from the statute or the contract. From the definition of the insured event in the then Insurance Act it followed that a third party (the injured person) also acquires a right to the indemnity when the insured event occurs. The decision applies pre-VÕS law.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 05.11.2007, 3-2-1-91-07
Judgment · paras 11-14 · voluntary liability insurance; no direct claim; VÕS § 518; VÕS § 521; bankruptcy
In compulsory liability insurance the injured party may claim directly from the insurer (VÕS § 521(1)); in voluntary liability insurance, as a rule, it may not. VÕS § 518 does not give a direct claim but, in the policyholder's bankruptcy, the right to satisfy the claim out of the policyholder's claim to the indemnity ahead of other creditors. The appellate court erred in deriving a direct claim from the assumption that the trustee in bankruptcy might breach its duties.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 14.09.2011, 3-2-1-70-11
Judgment · paras 12-16 · freight forwarder's liability insurance; VÕS § 513; extended grounds of release; persons equated with the insured; VÕS § 39
The insurer would not be released under VÕS § 513 even if the carrier caused the loss intentionally, but the contract may provide wider grounds of release (citing 3-2-1-144-05). It was therefore necessary to assess the standard term equating with the policyholder the persons it used to organise carriage and to interpret it under VÕS § 39, having regard also to whether the policyholder was a forwarder or a carrier. The policyholder had not been grossly negligent in choosing the carrier.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 21.11.2012, 3-2-1-127-12
Judgment · paras 13-14 · compulsory liability insurance; joint and several debtors; VÕS § 521(2); VÕS § 69; contribution
Several persons were jointly and severally liable for a loss; part of it was paid by the compulsory liability insurer of two of them. The dispute concerned contribution between the debtors.
Under VÕS § 521(1)-(2) the compulsory liability insurer is itself a joint and several debtor towards the injured party, and between insurer and policyholder the insurer alone bears the debt unless it is released. The insured debtor's internal share must therefore be reduced by what the insurer paid on its behalf. Shares are presumed equal (VÕS § 69(1)); a debtor relying on a different allocation (VÕS § 137(2)) bears the burden of proof.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 16.12.2015, 3-2-1-150-15
Judgment · paras 10-15 · compulsory liability insurance; recourse against the policyholder; VÕS § 521(2); VÕS § 513; indirect intent; TsÜS § 132
A drunk train driver caused a collision; the insurer compensated the injured parties and claimed recourse against the policyholder railway operator. The Supreme Court explained that under the third sentence of VÕS § 521(2) the policyholder's liability in the internal relationship presupposes the insurer's release from its obligation to perform. Within VÕS § 513 the 'event' is the occurrence giving rise to liability (the collision), and indirect intent of the policyholder suffices for release; standard terms may allocate liability differently from the statute. An employee's conduct is attributed to the policyholder in a contractual relationship under TsÜS § 132(1), not VÕS § 1054.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 19.04.2017, 3-2-1-28-17
Judgment · paras 9-11 · bailiff's compulsory professional liability insurance; reduction of statutory late-payment interest; VÕS § 162; VÕS § 140(1)
The court of appeal refused to reduce late-payment interest awarded against a bailiff solely because the bailiff carried compulsory liability insurance. The Supreme Court quashed that judgment.
The existence of compulsory liability insurance does not exclude a reduction under VÕS § 162(1); it is one factor among others, to be weighed against how much of the sum claimed the cover actually responds to (limit of indemnity versus interest claimed). Insurance may likewise be considered when reducing damages under VÕS § 140(1) and, for personal injury, VÕS § 139(4), but it is never an absolute bar to reduction.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 15.10.2025, 2-21-16822/84
Judgment · paras 10-16 · trustee in bankruptcy's compulsory liability insurance; VÕS § 521(1) and (5); exclusion of intent; Bankruptcy Act § 64(2); effect of avoidance
A creditor brought a direct claim (VÕS § 521(1)) against the compulsory liability insurer of a trustee in bankruptcy. The Supreme Court held that the creditor's loss may consist in part of its claim remaining unsatisfied from the estate (Bankruptcy Act (pankrotiseadus, PankrS) § 63(1)) and that no claims, including by third parties, can be based on an avoided insurance contract (para 13; in that case the insurer had not avoided the contract). The insurer may rely on the policy term under which the trustee's intentional breach of duty is not an insured event, as PankrS § 64(2) allows: VÕS § 521(5) does not create liability where there is no insured event at all, and the insurer's lack of an obligation where the insured event was caused intentionally is a general principle of insurance. The intent finding rested on the trustee's own transfers of estate funds to himself and related persons without legal basis over almost two years (para 15).
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
Author's view. In the author's view the Supreme Court erred on intent in this judgment. The protective purpose of compulsory liability insurance requires that the injured party be compensated even where the insured acted intentionally, as in motor insurance (Motor Insurance Act (liikluskindlustuse seadus, LKindlS) § 8(1), § 53(1) point 1), with intent relevant only internally through the insurer's recourse against the insured, which the author considers acceptable. The regulation of intent across the compulsory professional liability insurances is inconsistent and ambiguous (O.-J. Luik, K. Haavasalu, Juridica 2022/7, pp 517–528). Full reasoning and the strongest counter-argument: Direct action against liability insurers in Estonia.