Harju County Court ruled in favour of KredEx in a dispute over the cancellation of an insurance contract
Harju County Court ruled in favour of KredEx in the court proceedings between KredEx Krediidikindlustus and Windoor, and did not satisfy the claim for an insurance benefit of EUR 13.8 million.
The court sided with the position of KredEx Krediidikindlustus, that the cancellation of Windoor’s insurance contract had been legitimate and justified, and that the insurer does not have the obligation to pay insurance benefits in relation to the transactions made by Windoor in Kazakhstan. The court found that Windoor had concluded the insurance contracts fraudulently, while knowingly concealing additional side agreements.
According to Meelis Tambla, Chairman of the Management Board of KredEx Krediidikindlustus, KredEx is satisfied with the court ruling. “The court ruling enters into force when it is not appealed, which is why the dispute in not yet considered as finished. We do not rule out the chance that we will have to defend our positions in circuit court,” said Tambla.
There is no obligation to pay the insurance benefit mainly due to the fact that according to Estonian legislation the insurance contract has been cancelled. KredEx Krediidikindlustus cancelled Windoor’s insurance contract because Windoor concealed their other agreements made in Kazakhstan upon the conclusion of the contract. “Windoor’s representative testified in court that they had concluded an investment agreement, which has given the purchaser grounds to decline to perform their payment obligation. Information on this agreement was deliberately not disclosed. We also believe that in this case there is no clear claim against the purchaser, meaning that the insurable risk could not be realised at all,” explained Tambla.
According to the ruling, KredEx Krediidikindlustus is released from the obligation to pay insurance benefits to Windoor. However, they need to repay the part of the insurance premium which exceeds the expenses covered by KredEx Krediidikindlustus in relation to the transaction. “This has been acknowledged,” said Tambla.
According to Tambla, cancellation of an insurance contract is a very rare instance, and this is the first such case for KredEx Krediidikindlustus. “It is an extreme decision, which is not made without justification or rashly. It is a legal remedy, which enables the party mislead or deceived to exit a contract concluded by mistake or fraud. We are happy to see that Harju County Court also found that cancellation of the contract was justified,” added Tambla.
The court dispute between KredEx Krediidikindlustus and AS Windoor concerns the credit insurance contract cancelled in December 2014. The dispute is over the payment obligation of the insurance benefit. Windoor demanded the payment of close to EUR 14 million from KredEx Krediidikindlustus.