Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 459/2001 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses insurer's claim that insured company failed to mitigate loss after knowing repairs were covered.

Case Number KKO 459/2001
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the insurer's argument that the insured company failed to mitigate its loss. The company had repaired a building under a lease and was informed by the insurer that such repairs were covered by the landlord's insurance, yet took no further action. The court held that the insurer's information did not create a duty to mitigate for the insured, as the risk remained with the landlord until the fire occurred.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Kiinnitysasetus 18 §; The insurer's provision of information regarding coverage does not impose a duty on the insured to mitigate loss if the risk was not transferred to the insured.

Keywords

AI generated
duty to mitigate insurance coverage landlord's insurance insurer's information loss prevention supreme court civil liability

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Kiinnitysasetus 18 §
AI generated
appeal_1981_eastern-finland__288
Court dismissed claim for damages based on breach of contract due to lack of specific performance request.
kko-precedent_1990_26
Supreme Court allows claim against insurer and agent for misrepresentation inducing policy without specific exclusion clause.
kho-precedent_1997_8
Insurance compensation for a burnt farm building cannot be added to agricultural income if the right to receive it is not yet established.
kko-other_1995_2224
Supreme Court dismissed claim for damages against insurer based on criminal conviction and insurance contract terms.
kko-precedent_1987_66
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; driver loses claim against insurer and must pay litigation costs per Traffic Insurance Act.

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

Yhtiö oli liiketoimintaansa varten peruskorjannut vuokrasopimuksen perusteella hallitsemansa rakennuksen. Yhtiön vakuutuksista neuvoteltaessa vakuutusyhtiön edustaja oli ilmoittanut, että peruskorjaukset sisältyvät ainesosana kiinteistöön, joten ne tulivat katetuiksi kiinteistönomistajan vakuutuksesta. Yhtiö ei ryhtynyt mihinkään toimiin etujensa turvaamiseksi. Rakennus tuhoutui tulipalossa ja vakuutuskorvaus kiinteistönomistajan vakuutuksesta maksettiin kiinnitysasetuksen 18 §:n perusteella kiinnityksenhaltijoille. Rakennusta ei rakennettu uudelleen, eikä yhtiö saanut korvausta tekemistään peruskorjauksista. Kysymys vakuutusyhtiön tiedonantovelvollisuudesta.