This page is part of the overview of Estonian Supreme Court insurance case law. It collects 11 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
This is the most extensive and doctrinally significant line of Estonian insurance case law. The starting point is VÕS § 452(2)(2): the insurer may not rely on an agreement releasing it for breach of an obligation intended to reduce the risk if the breach did not affect the occurrence of the insured event or the extent of the insurer's obligation. The Supreme Court has derived the following rules: (1) a term that depends on the policyholder's conduct (key custody, guarding, storage conditions, maintenance) is in principle a duty of care, not a limitation of the risk, even where drafted as part of the definition of the insured event; (2) before assessing whether a standard term is void, the court must determine whether it is an exclusion or a duty of care; (3) the insurer must prove the breach, fault and causation; (4) breach of a duty of care generally does not lead to a complete refusal but to a reduction to the extent the breach increased the probability of the insured event. Terms that make payment depend on a circumstance with no effect on the insured event (such as visible signs of forced entry) are incompatible with VÕS § 452(2)(2).
Decisions
RKTKo 13.03.2001, 3-2-1-17-01
Judgment · no paragraph numbering · motor own-damage; theft; custody of keys; duty of care · pre-VÕS law
A car was stolen with keys that the user had shown to acquaintances in a bar and left in a jacket pocket on the back of a chair. The Supreme Court held that conditions prohibiting keys from being kept where outsiders know of them impose a duty of care on the user, and the appellate court had to give a reasoned assessment, on the facts found, of whether that duty was breached. The decision applies pre-VÕS law.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 04.03.2004, 3-2-1-25-04
Judgment · paras 15 et seq. · burglary insurance; alarm system; safety requirements; reduction of indemnity · pre-VÕS law; the conclusion rests on the policy conditions then in use
The policyholder failed to notice that the alarm system's infrared sensors had been covered; the courts treated this as negligence in breach of the safety requirements (keeping the alarm in working order). The Supreme Court agreed but pointed out that a general condition allowing the insurer to refuse payment for breach of an obligation does not permit refusal without reasons, and the possibility of reducing the indemnity must also be considered.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 01.06.2005, 3-2-1-59-05
Judgment · paras 11-17 · motor own-damage; theft; signs of forced entry; VÕS § 423(2); VÕS § 452(2)(2); VÕS § 37(3)
Under the conditions, a vehicle stolen with its keys was covered only if the keys had been obtained by robbery or by breaking into a building, to be proved by signs of forced entry. The Supreme Court held that such a term is incompatible with VÕS § 452(2)(2) because the presence of break-in marks does not affect the occurrence of the insured event; the vehicle was insured against theft and theft occurred. Insurance does not, however, release the policyholder from the care required in ordinary dealings, and breach of the key-custody requirement may affect the insured event. The chamber also referred to the control under VÕS § 37(3) of surprising and incomprehensible standard terms.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 05.04.2006, 3-2-1-17-06
Judgment · paras 10, 14-15 · burglary insurance; monitoring centre; culpable breach; partial indemnity
Under the conditions the premises had to have a working alarm connected to a monitoring centre. The Supreme Court held that under the contract the insurer could refuse payment only for a culpable breach of the safety requirements; if the system was switched off or faulty without intent or negligence on the policyholder's part, refusal is not justified. The insurer must also explain why the policyholder is not entitled to at least a partial indemnity.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 18.06.2007, 3-2-1-76-07
Judgment · paras 19, 22-23 · motor own-damage; theft; key clause; incomprehensible standard term; VÕS § 37(3)
The Supreme Court confirmed that the insurer is released only where the policyholder was not insured against the particular risk (VÕS § 423(2)) or breached an agreed obligation that affected the insured event (VÕS § 452(2)(2)). Terms under which theft is an insured event only if all mechanical and electronic keys are in the owner's possession, and a further exclusion operating together with them, were ambiguous and did not become part of the contract under VÕS § 37(3).
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 07.06.2011, 3-2-1-35-11
Judgment · paras 9-13; dissenting opinion · motor own-damage; gross negligence; speeding on a slippery road; causation; evidence
Establishing gross negligence requires more than finding that the speed limit was or was not observed; the question is whether the chosen speed suited the road and weather conditions. Causation must be established on the conditio sine qua non principle (VÕS § 127(4)). The Supreme Court quashed the judgments because the courts had refused to let the insurer adduce evidence while criticising it for failing to prove its case. A dissenting opinion by Justice J. Luik on the assessment of gross negligence is attached.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 23.12.2014, 3-2-1-136-14
Judgment · paras 13-14 · motor own-damage; theft from guarded premises; exclusion or duty of care; VÕS § 452(2)(2)
Before assessing whether a standard term is void, the court must decide whether the term excludes the insured event or merely regulates the policyholder's duty of care aimed at reducing the risk or preventing its increase. If the term is a duty of care that was breached, VÕS § 444, § 445(2) and § 452(2)(2) apply and the court must establish how far the breach increased the insured risk. This judgment is the starting point of later case law (2-22-2313/65, 2-23-10549/35). The part of the same judgment on limitation is summarised under topic 15.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 07.06.2017, 3-2-1-58-17
Judgment · paras 10-16 · machinery insurance; tractor storage conditions; standard term; complete refusal; proportionality
A general condition on storing a tractor outside working hours became part of the contract: it was neither surprising nor incomprehensible within VÕS § 37(3) and was to be interpreted under VÕS § 39(1). The insurer must prove the breach of the contract. The Supreme Court held that on the facts found there was no basis for denying the indemnity entirely; the court must establish whether and how far the breach increased the risk and affected the insured event and decide on a reduction accordingly.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 28.06.2024, 2-22-2313/65
Judgment · paras 12-17 · theft of a trailer; standard term; exclusion v duty of care; test; proportionate release
The policy's all-risks condition provided that theft of a trailer was not an insured event if at the time the trailer was neither coupled to a tractor unit nor located on guarded premises. The Supreme Court did not classify that term itself: it quashed the circuit court's judgment because that court had not taken a clear position on whether the term was an exclusion or a duty of care, and remitted the case (paras 13–14). It formulated the test for the rehearing: as a rule, where the occurrence of the condition depends mainly on the policyholder's conduct and fault, the term is a duty of care, not an exclusion of the insured event (para 15); and a breach of a duty of care should not as a rule exclude the indemnity entirely (para 16). If the circuit court finds that the term is a duty of care that was breached, the insurer is released under VÕS § 445(2) and § 452(2)(2) only to the extent that the breach increased the probability of the insured event; the insurer must prove that effect, and full release is possible only if the risk materialised solely because of the breach (para 17).
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 27.06.2025, 2-19-14759/139
Judgment · paras 14-14.4 · accident insurance; workplace accident; gross negligence; standard term; proportionality
The relatives of an electrician killed at work claimed the insurance benefit; the insurer refused entirely, relying on a term releasing it in the event of the insured person's gross negligence. The Supreme Court held that the courts had to assess the refusal under VÕS § 445(2) and § 452(2)(2): the insurer is released only to the extent that the insured person's breach increased the probability of the insured event. The insurer must prove whether and to what extent the breach affected the occurrence of the insured event, and it is released from its obligation in full only if the insured risk materialised solely because of the breach (para 14.3, referring to 2-22-2313/65, para 17). The Court remitted the case for the Court of Appeal to decide to what extent the insurer is released, assessing how far the risk materialised through the victim's breaches; possible negligence of the victim, which may have increased the insured risk, does not exclude the benefit entirely (para 14.4).
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 25.03.2026, 2-23-10549/35
Judgment · paras 10-16 · motor own-damage; engine failure; maintenance clause; vehicle registered abroad; duty of care
Under the conditions, loss to a car first registered outside Estonia was covered only if its technical condition had been confirmed by the brand's dealer or an insurer-approved firm and it had been serviced as the manufacturer required. The Supreme Court confirmed that these terms regulate a duty of care because compliance depends on the policyholder's conduct. The insurer must prove the breach and its causal link to an increase in the insured risk; the indemnity may be reduced only to the extent the breach increased the risk. An insurer relying on increased risk must be able to show what caused the specific engine failure, and the policyholder must, under the duty to cooperate and good faith, allow an expert to dismantle the engine. The circuit court's judgment was set aside and the case sent back for a new hearing.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)