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
Under VÕS § 475(1) claims arising from an insurance contract are time-barred after three years from the end of the calendar year in which the claim fell due. This must be strictly distinguished from the one-year period for bringing an action under VÕS § 475(3), which is a preclusive period, not a limitation period, and which runs only from receipt of the insurer's written refusal; the insurer is not released if its refusal does not inform the policyholder of the legal consequence of the expiry of the one-year period (VÕS § 475(3), second sentence). Filing an action suspends limitation only to the extent of the amount claimed, so later increasing the claim may be time-barred. The insurer's later conduct (e.g. a willingness to pay) may, under the principle of good faith, prevent it from relying on the time limit. For transitional claims the shorter VÕS limitation period ran from 1 July 2002.
Decisions
RKTKo 14.11.2007, 3-2-1-82-07
Judgment · paras 9, 11-15 · limitation; VÕS § 475(1); transitional rules; VÕS Implementation Act § 9; computation of time
A claim arising from a 1999 insured event would have been time-barred after ten years under the previous law. Under § 9 of the Law of Obligations Act, General Part of the Civil Code Act and Private International Law Act Implementation Act (VÕSRS) the three-year period of VÕS § 475(1) also applies to claims arising before 1 July 2002 that were not yet time-barred, and the shorter period runs from 1 July 2002. The end of the period must be determined under TsÜS §§ 135 and 136; the Supreme Court quashed the judgments dismissing the claim as time-barred.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 23.12.2014, 3-2-1-136-14
Judgment · paras 9-10 · VÕS § 475(1) and (3); preclusive period; suspension of limitation; increase of the claim; TsÜS § 160
VÕS § 475(3) lays down a preclusive period which does not affect limitation of the claim or the policyholder's procedural rights. Under TsÜS § 160(1) filing an action suspends limitation only in respect of the part claimed; for the remainder limitation continues under VÕS § 475(1), so if the claim is increased during the proceedings the additional part may be time-barred. The part of the judgment on duties of care is under topic 4.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 21.09.2016, 3-2-1-59-16
Judgment · paras 11, 13-15 · VÕS § 475(3); preclusive period; good faith; insurer's willingness to pay
The Supreme Court confirmed that the one-year period for bringing an action in VÕS § 475(3) is preclusive, not a limitation period. The courts had, however, ignored the policyholder's argument that after refusing the insurer had expressed willingness to pay monetary compensation; under the principle of good faith (TsÜS § 138(1), VÕS § 6) relying on the time limit may in such a case be unacceptable. The court is not bound by the parties' legal characterisation.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 18.04.2018, 2-15-6538/82
Judgment · paras 12-16 · VÕS § 475(3); start of the period; receipt of refusal; e-mail; TsÜS § 69(2); TsÜS § 136(2)
The period in VÕS § 475(3) starts on receipt of the refusal. Under TsÜS § 69(2) an e-mail is received when the recipient has a reasonable opportunity to read it, and the expiry date of a period counted in years is determined under TsÜS § 136(2). The refusal was sent on 28 April 2014 and the action filed on 29 April 2015; the Supreme Court held that it was filed in time.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)