Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 4.11.1996/12111:95 AI generated

Insurance court dismissed claim for 19,000 marks as it was pure financial loss, not property damage under criminal law.

Case Number VakO 4.11.1996/12111:95
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Insurance Court rejected a claim for 19,000 marks in damages arising from an ATM malfunction. The applicant argued for compensation, but the court determined the loss constituted pure financial damage rather than property damage as defined in the Criminal Damage Act. Consequently, the court upheld the State Office's decision to deny the claim based on this statutory distinction.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Criminal Damage Act; Insurance Act: Pure financial loss resulting from an ATM malfunction does not constitute property damage under the Criminal Damage Act and is therefore not compensable under the Insurance Act.

Keywords

AI generated
pure financial loss property damage Criminal Damage Act ATM malfunction insurance liability damages claim State Office decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Criminal Damage Act
Insurance Act

Cited Case Law

AI generated
VakO D:890:82
VakO D:890:82 ja D:677:84
VakO D:677:84
AI generated
insurance_1982_4093-1981
Insurance court ruled theft compensation must be reduced if caused by a state-compensable offender.
insurance_1981_10-1981
Insurance court ruled bonus loss from vehicle damage counts as property damage under state liability law.
insurance_1996_10682-1995
Insurance court dismissed claim where foreign citizen was not summoned and lower court relied on new notice.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2026:31
Supreme Court allows damages claim against money launderer for weakening victim's recovery chances.
appeal_1979_eastern-finland__1646
Court dismissed damages claim for non-pecuniary loss due to lack of statutory basis in Finnish law.

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

Pankkiautomaattinostoista aiheutunut vahinko 19.000 markkaa jätettiin korvaamatta, koska kysymyksessä ei ollut rikosvahinkolaissa tarkoitettu esinevahinko (vaan ns. puhdas varallisuusvahinko). Valtiokonttorin päätöstä ei muutettu. VI-jaosto Kts. VakO D:890:82 ja D:677:84