Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 18.10.1996/10682:95 AI generated

Insurance court dismissed claim where foreign citizen was not summoned and lower court relied on new notice.

Case Number VakO 18.10.1996/10682:95
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The insurance court dismissed the applicant's claim for damages against the insurer. The applicant, a Swedish national, had not been summoned to the proceedings, and the lower court based its decision on a new notice rather than a final judicial determination of liability. The court ruled that the insurer's obligation to pay did not depend on a prior resolution of the liability issue in a criminal or civil tort proceeding.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Vakuutusoikeus 10. luku; The insurance court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim for damages if the underlying liability has not been finally determined in a criminal or civil proceeding, and procedural defects such as failure to summon a party may lead to dismissal.

Keywords

AI generated
insurance court jurisdiction foreign national summons new notice reliance liability determination prerequisite procedural defect dismissal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Vakuutusoikeus 10. luku
AI generated
kko-other_1997_4005
Supreme Court allows damages claim when criminal charge is dismissed, ruling civil liability persists independently of criminal acquittal.
kko-precedent_1998_121
Supreme Court allows damages claim against thief despite acquittal due to lack of intent for theft.
insurance_1982_4093-1981
Insurance court ruled theft compensation must be reduced if caused by a state-compensable offender.
kko-precedent_1999_41
Supreme Court rejects reduction of damages due to defendant's intentional tort and future earning potential.
insurance_2003_8939-2002
Court allows criminal damage compensation for victim fearing partner's safety in attempted kidnapping case.

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

Rikoksentekijää, joka oli Ruotsin kansalainen, ei ollut saatu haastetuksi ja alioikeus, jossa hakija oli esittänyt korvausvaatimuksensa, oli jättänyt asian uuden ilmoituksen varaan. RIVL:n mukaisen kor

vauksen suorittaminen ei edellyttänyt, että hakijan oikeus saada vahingosta vastuussa olevalta korvausta on ratkaistu rikostai vahingonkorvausoikeudenkäynnissä. Valtiokonttorin päätös kumottiin. II-jaosto