This page is part of the overview of Estonian Supreme Court insurance case law. It collects 17 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 § 492(1) the claim of the policyholder or insured person against a third party passes to the insurer by operation of law to the extent of the indemnity paid. The Supreme Court has consistently treated this as a statutory transfer of claim (VÕS § 173) governed by the rules on assignment: the claim passes in the state in which the policyholder held it, and the third party may raise all defences it had against the policyholder. Breaches of the insurance contract between policyholder and insurer (e.g. ignoring safety rules) do not release the third party. Only loss actually borne by the policyholder passes; the insurer's own handling costs (e.g. loss assessment) are not transferred loss. Recourse claims between apartment owners are heard in non-contentious proceedings, and their requirements follow from the Apartment Ownership and Apartment Associations Act and VÕS § 115(1). For water damage, depreciation is not deducted from repair costs.
Decisions
RKTKo 23.10.2002, 3-2-1-112-02
Judgment · paras 7-9 · own-damage subrogation; Insurance Act § 18; insolvency of the motor insurer; liability of the tortfeasor · pre-VÕS law
An own-damage insurer that had paid for vehicle damage claimed against the tortfeasor personally because the tortfeasor's motor liability insurer was insolvent and had been wound up. The Supreme Court held that the then Motor Insurance Act contained no special rules excluding the tortfeasor's liability in tort, and the claim transferred to the insurer against the tortfeasor was admissible. The decision applies pre-VÕS law.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 23.03.2005, 3-2-1-15-05
Judgment · paras 25 · statutory transfer of claim; Insurance Act § 18; Civil Code § 387; CMR · pre-VÕS law
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that after paying the indemnity the insurer can bring only a 'recourse claim' and not the claim under the carriage contract (CMR). Under the then Insurance Act § 18 and Civil Code § 387 the insured's claim against the person liable passed to the insurer by operation of law, so the insurer brings the very claim the insured held. The decision applies pre-VÕS law; the same logic applies under VÕS § 492(1).
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 21.11.2005, 3-2-1-111-05
Judgment · paras 26, 29-30 · own-damage and motor liability insurers; transfer of claim; intent of the victim; default interest · pre-VÕS law
An insurer that had compensated the victim could, under the then Insurance Act § 18 and the Motor Insurance Act, claim from the tortfeasor's motor liability insurer. The motor insurer could not refuse on the ground that the victim was responsible, because under Civil Code § 458 only the victim's intent excluded the liability of the keeper of a source of greater danger. The chamber also held that the then motor-insurance default-interest provision applied to property damage, not to personal injury. The decision applies law in force before the VÕS and LKindlS.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 17.01.2007, 3-2-1-133-06
Judgment · paras 10, 13, 18 · health insurance; workplace accident; recourse of the Health Insurance Fund against the employer; fault · pre-October 2002 RaKS
The Health Insurance Fund (now Tervisekassa) claimed from an employer the difference between the increased sickness benefit paid after a workplace accident and the ordinary benefit. The Chamber held that this is a civil-law recourse claim for the ordinary courts, even though it rests on a public-law statute.
On the merits, the then Health Insurance Act provision was read as requiring the employer's liability, i.e. a culpable breach of the employer's duties; the provision only fixed the amount recoverable. The argument that an employer can insure the risk does not justify strict liability, because almost any risk can be insured.
The current equivalent is § 62(5) of the Health Insurance Act (ravikindlustuse seadus, RaKS). Whether the same reading applies to it must be assessed under the current statute.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 12.03.2008, 3-2-1-2-08
Judgment · paras 13-17 · VÕS § 492(1); sewerage service provider; breach of safety rules; defences
A property insurer claimed from the sewerage service provider for damage caused by sewage backflow. The Supreme Court held that the policyholder's breach of safety rules in the insurance contract is relevant only between the parties to that contract and does not release the third party. Under VÕS § 171(1) the third party may raise against the insurer the defences it had against the policyholder, and the court must also assess the validity of the provider's standard term and its duty to warn of the danger posed by a missing backflow device.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 13.12.2011, 3-2-1-124-11
Judgment · paras 14-16 · VÕS § 492; insured person; payment to a person not entitled
In the second round of the same dispute the Supreme Court explained that the insurer could rely on the claim transferred from the property owner as the insured person (VÕS § 424). The chamber rejected the view that if the insurer pays the indemnity to a person not entitled, the entitled person loses its claim against the insurer. It also reiterated that the absence of a protective device on the insured property does not release the service provider that caused the damage.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 11.12.2013, 3-2-1-129-13
Judgment · paras 18-28, 44-48 · recourse against apartment owners and association; community of apartment owners; jointly owned pipes; VÕS § 139
The Supreme Court explained the basis of recourse for water damage: the community of apartment owners gives rise to a special statutory obligation between them, breach of which entitles the injured owner (and the insurer in its place) to compensation under VÕS § 115 and §§ 127-128. Owners possess jointly owned risers and pipework together and are jointly responsible for their condition. Several liable persons are jointly and severally liable (VÕS § 137(1)), and compensation may be reduced for the injured party's contribution (VÕS § 139).
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKm 03.12.2014, 3-2-1-117-14
Order · paras 13 · recourse against apartment association; breach of duty towards an owner
The insurer relied on the association's breach of its obligation towards the apartment owner. The Supreme Court held that the county court had wrongly relied on judgment 3-2-1-161-12, in which an insurer claimed from an association for damage caused in tort to a third party; that ruling was neither relevant nor applicable by analogy.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 16.05.2018, 2-16-8344/41
Judgment · paras 12 · VÕS § 492(1); extent of the loss; VÕS § 132(3)
An insurer that has compensated its policyholders has under VÕS § 492(1) a claim against the alleged wrongdoers to the extent paid, but the extent of that claim is determined by the general rules of damages. For damage to property, compensation under VÕS § 132(3) primarily covers reasonable repair costs and any loss in value, not necessarily everything the insurer paid to its policyholder.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKm 10.04.2019, 2-17-13363/52
Order · paras 21-25 · recourse; loss assessment costs; VÕS § 489(1); VÕS § 492
In addition to repair costs the insurer claimed from the wrongdoer the cost of assessing the loss. The Supreme Court held that there is no legal basis for this: under VÕS § 489(1) determining the amount of loss is the insurer's own contractual obligation, the policyholder did not bear that cost, and such a claim therefore cannot pass to the insurer under VÕS § 492. VÕS § 128(3), as the definition of direct pecuniary loss, does not create an independent claim.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKm 22.04.2020, 2-19-19561/13
Order · paras 10, 14 · recourse against an apartment owner; non-contentious proceedings; TsMS § 613
A claim of the owner of a damaged apartment against the owner who caused the damage, transferred to the insurer under VÕS § 492(1), is heard in non-contentious proceedings (TsMS § 475(1)(13), § 613(1)(1)) because it concerns the rights and duties of apartment owners among themselves. The transfer to the insurer does not change the type of proceedings.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKo 19.03.2021, 2-18-13649/57
Judgment · paras 22-23 · recourse against an apartment owner; contentious and non-contentious proceedings; parties
Since an apartment owner's damages claim must be decided in non-contentious proceedings, where the court joins parties of its own motion, deciding the case in contentious proceedings could in this instance have materially affected the outcome. The Supreme Court quashed the decisions and remitted the case for fresh consideration in non-contentious proceedings, to avoid the insurer having to bring several separate proceedings.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKm 09.03.2022, 2-19-9543/48
Order · paras 15-16 · recourse; damage originating from common property; VÕS § 115(1); breach of duty
The Supreme Court systematised the requirements of a damages claim where the loss originated from the apartment owners' common property: the owner of the damaged apartment, or the insurer in its place, may claim against an owner, the association or any other person who breached a duty, provided the breach is not excusable, the loss falls within the protective purpose of the duty and causation exists (VÕS § 115(1), § 103(1), § 127).
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKm 30.03.2023, 2-19-9500/62
Order · paras 13-16 · recourse; damage originating from a separate unit; presumption; KrtS § 12(2); AÕS § 72(5)
Where the damaging cause originated within one owner's separate unit, it may be presumed that the owner breached its duty and that the breach was not excusable. The fact that the leak came from an item of common property located within that unit does not by itself release the owner: to escape liability the owner must prove that it did not breach the duty incumbent on it (in particular, the duty to maintain the item of common property) or that the breach was excusable (para 15.1). The courts must establish why the pipe failed, since the cause defines the owner's maintenance duty and determines whether the breach was causally linked to the damage (para 15.3). Where the damage originated from common property and no owner or the association breached a duty, the injured owner may claim compensation from the other owners through the association (§ 12(2) of the Apartment Ownership and Apartment Associations Act (korteriomandi- ja korteriühistuseadus, KrtS) and § 72(5) of the Law of Property Act (asjaõigusseadus, AÕS)).
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKm 09.05.2025, 2-21-11325/28
Order · paras 12, 14.6, 16-17 · recourse; water leak; partition wall and drainpipe; common or separate property; breach of duty
The Supreme Court reiterated that the owner of a damaged apartment, or the insurer, may claim from another owner both where the damage originated from a separate unit and from common property, but liability requires a breach of duty. A drainpipe serving a single apartment can be regarded as part of common property only if it is established that removing it would materially damage a commonly owned wall. On the facts, no breach of the duty to maintain common property could be attributed to the respondent.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKm 26.06.2025, 2-20-5374/68
Order · paras 10-16 · VÕS § 492(1); identity of the claim; VÕS § 164(2); § 173(2); depreciation; VÕS § 132(3)
The transfer of a claim under VÕS § 492(1) does not alter its identity: it passes to the insurer to the extent the policyholder held it against the third party, but not beyond what the insurer paid. Depreciation provisions in the contract between policyholder and insurer therefore cannot reduce the claim against the third party. Under VÕS § 132(3), depreciation of damaged items is not deducted from reasonable repair costs for water damage, even if the owner is inevitably enriched to some extent by the repair.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)
RKTKm 04.03.2026, 2-24-6606/51
Order · paras 12-14 · claims between apartment owners; limitation; claim arising from a transaction; TsÜS § 147
In the context of an insurer's recourse claim, the Supreme Court confirmed that the limitation period for claims arising from transactions applies to claims among apartment owners and the association. Under TsÜS § 147 limitation runs from when the claim falls due, i.e. when the entitled person may demand performance, regardless of when it learned of the claim. The appellate court erred in taking the date of knowledge as the starting point.
Judgment on riigikohus.ee (Estonian)