Insurance court dismissed claim for death benefit because defendants were not institutional care recipients under the Criminal Damage Act.
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Insurance Court dismissed the claim for death benefit regarding property damage because the defendants were not considered institutional care recipients under Section 8 of the Criminal Damage Act. Although the defendants received residential services and day care with work activities under the Act on Special Care for Developmentally Disabled Persons, these open care forms did not include restrictions on their freedom. The court ruled that without such restrictions, the defendants could not be classified as institutional care recipients required for the statutory coverage.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedSection 8 of the Criminal Damage Act; Section 1 of the Act on Special Care for Developmentally Disabled Persons: The court established that individuals receiving residential services and day care without restrictions on their personal freedom do not qualify as institutional care recipients under the Criminal Damage Act.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedFull text
Valtiokonttori oli hylännyt kuolinpesän korvausvaatimuksen esinevahingosta, koska rikoksentekijät eivät olleet rikosvahinkolain 8 §:ssä tarkoitettuja laitoshoidokkeja. VakO hylkäsi valituksen. Vaikka tekijät olivat saaneet kehitysvammaisten erityishuollosta annetun lain nojalla asumispalveluja ja laitoshoitoa, joka oli sisältänyt päivähoitona työtoimintaa tarpeen mukaan, eivät nämä avohoitomuodot kuitenkaan olleet sisältäneet huollettavien vapauden rajoituksia siten, että tekijöitä olisi pidettävä mainitussa lainkohdassa tarkoitettuina laitoshoidokkeina. VI-jaosto