This page is part of the overview of Estonian Supreme Court insurance case law. It collects 1 decision 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
The Supreme Court's case law on termination and invalidity in insurance is fragmentary. The decisions confirm that fraud and mistake are distinct grounds of avoidance that must be strictly distinguished; that an insurance contract concluded without authority does not bind the principal; and that avoidance of an insurance contract also affects third parties, including the injured party in liability insurance, because an avoided transaction is void from the outset (TsÜS § 90(1)). On the consequences of termination see also the VÕS § 495(3) decision under topic 2. No comprehensive Supreme Court decision on withdrawal (VÕS § 441) or on avoidance for breach of the disclosure duty was identified for this overview.
Decisions
RKTKo 25.05.2001, 3-2-1-34-01
Judgment · no paragraph numbering · life insurance; avoidance; fraud v mistake; limits of the claim · pre-VÕS law
The policyholder sought to have a life insurance contract declared invalid on the ground that the insurer had deceived him. The Supreme Court stressed that fraud (intentionally inducing a mistake) and mistake (lack of knowledge of the facts, which may also result from slight or gross carelessness) are different grounds of invalidity that must be strictly distinguished, and the court may not decide a claim the plaintiff did not bring. The decision applies the version of the TsÜS in force before 2002; the current TsÜS likewise treats avoidance for mistake and for fraud in separate provisions.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)