Legislator Case Law & Legislation
VakO 22.11.1993/7377:92 AI generated

Insurance court dismissed claim for death benefit because defendants were not institutional care recipients under the Criminal Damage Act.

Case Number VakO 22.11.1993/7377:92
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed

Legislator summary

AI generated

The 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 generated

Section 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 generated
Criminal Damage Act institutional care recipients death benefit claim freedom restrictions special care legislation property damage liability insurance court jurisdiction

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 8 of the Criminal Damage Act
Act on Special Care for Developmentally Disabled Persons
AI generated

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

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