This page is part of the overview of Estonian Supreme Court insurance case law. It collects 28 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
Motor insurance case law spans three statutes: the 1995 Motor Insurance Act (referred to in decisions as LKS), the 2001 Motor Third Party Liability Insurance Act (LKindlS 2001) and the current Motor Third Party Liability Insurance Act (liikluskindlustuse seadus, LKindlS) which entered into force in 2014. Earlier holdings must be used with caution under the current statute, especially regarding recourse (LKindlS 2001 § 48 corresponds in part to § 53 of the current LKindlS). Recurring principles are: the insured event and the tortfeasor's liability rest on the strict liability of the keeper of a motor vehicle (VÕS § 1057), which must not be hollowed out by weighing fault; in a collision of two vehicles the loss is apportioned under VÕS § 139, taking into account both the objective danger of the vehicles and the drivers' conduct; the concept of the insured event is interpreted broadly in line with Directive 2009/103/EC and the case law of the Court of Justice; recourse claims are exceptional and their requirements (including fault and causation) must be established in relation to the specific act. In disputes over repair costs the insurer must prove that the repair it proposes restores the injured party's position at least equally well.
Decisions
RKTKo 10.10.2001, 3-2-1-60-01
Judgment · no paragraph numbering · LKS (1995); own-damage insurer's claim; loss of the owner of the vehicle at fault · pre-VÕS law
The majority upheld the motor own-damage insurer's claim against the other vehicle's motor liability insurer for 50% of the indemnity paid, because each driver was 50% at fault and the claim had transferred to the paying insurer under § 18 of the then Insurance Act. Depending on the circumstances, failure to comply with the statutory notification or claim deadline could justify refusal, but the defendant had not advanced such circumstances in this case. Justice J. Luik dissented, disputing, among other matters, the basis of the own-damage insurer's recourse claim. The decision concerns pre-VÕS law and is of historical interest.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 12.06.2002, 3-2-1-84-02
Judgment · paras 8 et seq. · LKS (1995); uninsured vehicle; recourse of the Motor Insurance Fund; owner or driver · pre-VÕS law
Where damage was caused by an uninsured vehicle, under the then LKS § 38(1) the Estonian Motor Insurance Fund could choose whether to claim recourse from the driver who caused the damage or from the owner of the vehicle. The provision was lex specialis in relation to the general liability rules. The decision is of historical interest.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 31.10.2002, 3-2-1-125-02
Judgment · paras 7-9 · 1995 LKS; liability of the tortfeasor; no joint and several liability with the insurer under the 1995 Act · pre-VÕS law
The 1995 Motor Insurance Act did not relieve the tortfeasor of civil liability: if the victim obtained no indemnity from the insurer, the tortfeasor remained liable. That Act did not, however, make the tortfeasor and the insurer jointly and severally liable; the Chamber noted that this changed with the 2001 Act (in force from 1 June 2001) and the VÕS.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 18.05.2004, 3-2-1-64-04
Judgment · paras 9-10, 13 · LKS (1995); time limit for property damage claims; purpose of compulsory insurance · pre-VÕS law
Under the then LKS the victim had to claim for property damage within one year. The Supreme Court held that even where timely submission is not proved, the court must weigh the purposes of compulsory motor insurance and the circumstances (e.g. a civil claim in criminal proceedings left undecided) before treating refusal as lawful. The decision is of historical interest.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 08.11.2004, 3-2-1-117-04
Judgment · paras 18, 21 · LKindlS 2001; towing; vehicle adapted as trailer; liable insurer
A towed car collided with another vehicle because the driver of the towing vehicle failed to ensure the manoeuvre was safe. The Supreme Court held that under the wording of LKindlS 2001 in force at the time, damage caused by a vehicle adapted as a trailer was deemed caused by the keeper of the towing vehicle, so the towing vehicle's insurer was liable.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 18.11.2004, 3-2-1-132-04
Judgment · paras 11-13 · LKindlS 2001; compulsory liability insurance; claim between own-damage and motor insurers; default interest
Under LKindlS 2001 motor insurance is compulsory and, as a rule, liability insurance of the keeper of a source of greater danger, to which the special statute applies and other statutes only insofar as the special statute does not provide otherwise. In a dispute between an own-damage insurer and a motor insurer the chamber addressed default interest under LKindlS 2001 § 45(4) for delayed payment.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 11.10.2005, 3-2-1-97-05
Judgment · paras 9-11 · recourse; leaving the scene; LKindlS 2001 § 48(2)(7); misdemeanour proceedings
Recourse for leaving the scene required that the driver left culpably in breach of the law. The Supreme Court held that, in deciding the recourse claim, the civil court may itself establish unlawful departure even if the driver was not punished for it in misdemeanour proceedings.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 21.12.2005, 3-2-1-139-05
Judgment · paras 11, 14 · LKindlS 2001 §§ 45-46; time limit for decisions; insurance arbitration
A motor insurer must decide to pay or refuse as soon as the necessary information is available and no later than 30 days after the claim, and communicate the decision in writing (LKindlS 2001 § 45(1), § 46). The chamber reiterated that a decision of the insurance arbitration body does not enter into force if a party brings an action in court in the same dispute (LKindlS 2001 § 58(4)).
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 14.06.2006, 3-2-1-48-06
Judgment · paras 10, 12-13 · recourse; handing over to a drunk driver; LKindlS 2001 § 48(2)(3); employer's liability
Recourse for handing over control of a vehicle to an intoxicated person does not require that the handover was intentional; the provision applies also where it is established that the keeper allowed an intoxicated person to drive. The chamber also addressed the liability of the employer and shareholder of the employee who caused the damage under VÕS §§ 1054 and 1057.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 28.11.2006, 3-2-1-105-06
Judgment · paras 9-12 · LKindlS 2001 § 48(2)7; recourse; leaving the scene; fault; evidence from misdemeanour proceedings
For recourse against a driver who left the scene of an accident, the insurer must prove culpable leaving (flight); fault is not presumed because this is not a damages claim. A civil court may establish unlawful leaving even if the driver was not punished in misdemeanour proceedings, but it must assess the misdemeanour decision together with other evidence. Leaving to obtain urgent medical help may not be culpable.
The current statute (LKindlS § 53(1)2) likewise requires that the driver left the scene unlawfully and culpably.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 31.01.2007, 3-2-1-138-06
Judgment · paras 10-12 · 1995 LKS § 38(2)3; unlicensed driver; employer's vicarious liability; addressee of recourse · pre-VÕS law
An employee without the required driving licence drove the employer's truck on the employer's instructions and caused an accident. The insurer's recourse could be directed only at the person liable to the victim; since the employer was liable for harm caused by its employee in the course of employment, the recourse claim lay against the employer alone.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 28.09.2009, 3-2-1-76-09
Judgment · paras 13 et seq. · LKindlS 2001 § 44(3)(2); victim's claim; VÕS § 1057(3); victim's intent
LKindlS 2001 § 44(3)(2) only excludes compensation of the responsible driver's own loss (except medical costs) and does not apply to the victim's claim. Under VÕS § 1057(3) the keeper's strict liability, and hence the motor insurer's obligation, is excluded where the damage was caused by the victim's intent.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 16.03.2010, 3-2-1-4-10
Judgment · paras 12-13 · recourse; no driving licence; LKindlS 2001 § 48(2)(4); contracting party; good faith
The Supreme Court held that for the purposes of LKindlS 2001 § 48(2)(4) the owner or keeper is the person who concluded the insurance contract, so recourse under that provision could be claimed only from the contracting party. The insurer's good faith at conclusion also had to be assessed. The Supreme Court later departed from this interpretation in 3-2-1-35-14.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 02.03.2011, 3-2-1-161-10
Judgment · paras 11-12 · strict liability; VÕS § 1057(3); intent of the victim; LKindlS 2001 § 40
The victim could claim compensation either from the person liable or from that person's insurer (LKindlS 2001 § 40). The keeper of a motor vehicle is liable regardless of fault where the danger characteristic of operating the vehicle materialises. Within VÕS § 1057(3) the victim's intent means intent to harm oneself; other conduct of the victim does not exclude strict liability but may affect the amount of compensation.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 04.05.2011, 3-2-1-29-11
Judgment · paras 8-12 · collision of two sources of greater danger; strict liability; LKindlS 2001 § 26(4)
In a collision between a dump truck and a car, the courts wrongly failed to apply the strict liability provisions where two sources of greater danger were involved. Motor damage had to be compensated to the extent of the insured's liability, which must be determined having regard to the danger associated with both vehicles and the drivers' conduct, not only to whose manoeuvre caused the accident.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 12.12.2011, 3-2-1-108-11
Judgment · paras 12-14 · personal injury; loss of income; LKindlS 2001 § 29(5); unemployed person
LKindlS 2001 § 29(5)(5) (compensation for an unemployed or non-working person) applies only where the victim had no income subject to social tax during the whole six months preceding the accident. If the victim earned such income during that period, even though not working at the time of the accident, compensation is calculated on the basis of actual income (point 2).
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 19.03.2013, 3-2-1-7-13
Judgment · paras 10, 15, 30-33 · collision of two motor vehicles; VÕS § 139; strict liability; disputes committee; limitation
In a collision of two motor vehicles, the court may under VÕS § 139 take into account in fixing compensation both the objective danger posed by each vehicle (mass, dimensions, speed, technical condition) and the drivers' conduct and breaches of traffic rules. Taking the drivers' conduct into account must not, however, distort the nature of strict liability or exclude VÕS § 1057. A decision of the insurance disputes committee does not enter into force if an action is filed within the statutory period. The claim failed because it was time-barred.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 14.05.2014, 3-2-1-35-14
Judgment · paras 11-13 et seq. · recourse; unlicensed driver; concept of keeper; change of case law; LKindlS 2001 § 48(2)(4)
The Supreme Court departed from its view in 3-2-1-4-10: under LKindlS 2001 § 48(2)(4) recourse may also be claimed from a person who did not conclude the insurance contract but committed the act described in that provision. The reasoning included that the concept of keeper in the motor insurance statute is broader than in the Law of Property Act.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 10.06.2015, 3-2-1-61-15
Judgment · paras 9-10, 13 · motor damage; legal classification of the claim; drivers' contribution; equal apportionment
Determining the legal basis of the claim is for the court regardless of the parties' submissions. If the circumstances of the accident cannot be established in detail, it does not follow that the drivers' contribution is unknown; to find roughly equal contribution it is not necessary to establish each party's exact share.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 26.11.2015, 3-2-1-64-15
Judgment · paras 11-12 · collision of two vehicles; VÕS § 139(1); equal contribution; mutual compensation
The appellate court wrongly held that where the drivers' contribution was roughly equal and there were no significant differences in the vehicles' risks, each keeper must compensate the other's loss in full. According to the Supreme Court, compensation must in such a case be reduced accordingly under VÕS § 139(1).
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 25.01.2016, 3-2-1-163-15
Judgment · paras 10-11 · recourse; expiry of driving licence; suspension of driving right; handing over
Expiry of a driving licence is not absence of the right to drive within LKindlS 2001 § 48(2)(4), and the handing-over alternative of that provision did not allow recourse against the owner even where the right to drive was suspended. The distinction between automatic suspension and suspension by decision matters only where the owner drove personally. The Supreme Court reinstated the county court judgment dismissing the recourse claim.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 16.06.2016, 3-2-1-45-16
Judgment · paras 13-15 · recourse against the owner; tortious liability; VÕS § 1045(1)(7); accident in Finland; Rome II Regulation
LKindlS 2001 § 48(2)(4) gives the insurer no recourse against a person who would not himself be liable in tort for the act to which the provision links recourse; the unlawfulness of the owner's act could follow from VÕS § 1045(1)(7) and the Traffic Act. Since the accident occurred in Finland, the Rome II Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 had to be considered in determining the applicable law.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 13.11.2017, 2-16-5564/52
Judgment · paras 11, 16 · LKindlS § 53 recourse; statutory transfer of claim; VÕS § 171; VÕS § 132(3)
Where, after compensating the victim, the insurer has a recourse claim against the driver under LKindlS § 53(1)(4), this is a statutory transfer of claim (VÕS § 173(3)(4)) governed by the rules on assignment; the driver may raise all defences it had against the victim (VÕS § 171). Replacing a damaged post with a new one may be repair within VÕS § 132(3), but the possibility of repairing it or using a second-hand replacement must also be considered.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 13.12.2017, 2-16-3600/32
Judgment · paras 9, 11.3-11.4, 12.2 · lessee's standing; lessor's security interest; LKindlS § 23; LKindlS § 26(8)
A lessee has a claim against the motor insurer of the vehicle that caused damage to a leased trailer in the lessee's possession. The lessor generally has only a security interest in the leased asset, and the lessee bears the risk of accidental loss. The insurer is not released because the claim was brought by the lessee; failure to hand over the damaged item may, under LKindlS § 26(8), affect only the amount of compensation.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 31.01.2018, 2-15-11797/39
Judgment · paras 9-13 · recourse against an unlicensed driver; LKindlS § 53(2)(3) and (3); presumption of causation
From the combined effect of LKindlS § 53(2)(3) and (3) it is presumed that an unlicensed driver caused the insured event because of the lack of a licence. Causation may be affirmed both where the driver does not know the traffic rules and where he lacks the skills and experience needed to drive safely; running a red light through absent-mindedness does not in itself exclude the link.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 25.04.2022, 2-19-108066/45
Judgment · paras 10-14 · recourse for leaving the scene; LKindlS § 53(1)(2); Traffic Act § 169; fault; no presumption of fault
Recourse for leaving the scene requires that the driver left unlawfully and culpably. Unlawfulness is assessed against the duties in § 169 of the Traffic Act (liiklusseadus, LS). Fault must be assessed in relation to the specific unlawful act rather than under the general VÕS provisions, and the presumption of fault in VÕS § 1050(1) does not apply to this recourse claim; the burden of proof lies with the insurer.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 20.05.2022, 2-19-19203/35
Judgment · paras 11-19 · insured event; LKindlS § 8; tractor; field; Directive 2009/103/EC; Vnuk
The concept of insured event in LKindlS § 8 must be interpreted consistently with Directive 2009/103/EC and the case law of the Court of Justice (Vnuk, Rodrigues de Andrade). A tractor is a vehicle irrespective of its use as agricultural machinery; when a tractor reversed into a stationary tractor while loading slurry, the risk characteristic of operating a vehicle in traffic materialised. In this context a field is an area ordinarily used for traffic, and the occurrence of the accident in a field does not exclude an insured event.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKm 01.06.2023, 2-21-5187/14
Order · paras 12-17 · repair costs; repair proposed by the insurer; burden of proof; LKindlS § 26(2); manufacturer's warranty
Where a motor insurer disputes the necessity of the repair costs claimed by the victim, it must prove that the work of the repairer it proposes would restore the vehicle's pre-damage value at least to the same extent (LKindlS § 26(2), VÕS § 127(1)). The victim need not choose the cheapest repair; the repair must ensure the maximum restoration of pre-damage value, including, where relevant, preservation of the manufacturer's warranty.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)