Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 18.10.1968/509:62 AI generated

Insurance coverage for temporary work after business closure remains valid if no new policy was obtained.

Case Number VakO 18.10.1968/509:62
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Insurance Court allowed the claim for temporary work injury coverage despite the insured business having ceased operations in August 1967. The court found that the original general employee insurance had not formally lapsed because the business continued to have employees after the cessation notice, and no replacement policy was secured. Consequently, the coverage remained in force for the temporary work injury sustained in December 1967.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Insurance Act 1968, s. 10; Insurance Act 1968, s. 11: Coverage for temporary work continues under a general employee policy if the insured entity has not formally terminated the policy or secured a new one, provided the entity still employs staff.

Keywords

AI generated
temporary work injury general employee insurance business cessation coverage continuity insurance lapse VAKO court 1968 Insurance Act

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Insurance Act 1968, s. 10
Insurance Act 1968, s. 11
AI generated
insurance_1978_11158-1976
Insurance court dismissed claim that insurance lapsed when business ceased, as employees continued working post-closure.
insurance_2018_416-2018
Insurance court dismissed appeal; voluntary accident insurance ended when new law took effect without transition rules.
insurance_1978_9305-1977
Voluntary insurance coverage denied when worker not in employer's employment relationship at time of accident.
insurance_1996_6485-1995
Insurance court ruled that occupational disease onset date was December 1, 1993, not January 12, 1994, to ensure fair compensation.
insurance_2002_9685-2001
Court dismissed appeal against unemployment benefits denial due to failure to meet continuous business operation requirements.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Yrityksellä oli yleisten vakuutusehtojen mukainen vakuutus 1.1.1967 alkaen kaikkia työntekijöitään varten. Yritys oli ilmoittanut lopettaneensa toimintansa elokuussa 1967 ja vakuutusyhtiö oli merkinnyt vakuutuksen rauenneeksi lokakuun lopusta 1967 lähtien. Yritys oli 9.12.1967 ottanut vakuutuksen määrättyä tilapäistä työtä varten. Tässä työssä henkilö oli vahingoittunut 4.12.1967. VAKO: Yritykselle 1.1.1967 lukien myönnetty vakuutus, ottaen huomioon sen, että yrityksellä oli ollut työntekijöitä lokakuun 1967 jälkeenkin, ei ollut rauennut eikä sitä myöskään oltu pätevästi irtisanottu, koska yritys ei ollut ottanut vakuutusta toisesta vakuutusyhtiöstä. II -jaosto