Skip to decisions
Žuk — ANTON и JELENA

Narva apartment associations Court decisions

The collection is growing. We explain decisions in accessible language. Browsing by subject helps readers study building management practice, explore similar situations and prevent conflicts.

Materials for studying practice. An editorial summary does not replace an individual legal assessment or promise a dispute outcome.

Subjects and subtopics

A subject describes the dispute; it does not establish a violation.

Additional parameters

Reset all
Case 2-26-106350Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Juuli tn 3 korteriühistu · 80180737

Damage and insurance

How it started · editorial summary

The association waived its demand against two individuals XX, describing it as unfounded. One participant agreed; the other did not participate.

· Ruling (kohtumäärus) accepting waiver of an applicationViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-26-106350/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Juuli tn 3: court ended damages case after association waived its demand

Ruling (kohtumäärus) accepting waiver of an application · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Juuli tn 3 korteriühistu · 80180737

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – apartment association; two interested persons XX – persons addressed by the demand; association’s legal representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The association waived its demand against two individuals XX, describing it as unfounded. One participant agreed; the other did not participate.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Narva linn, Juuli tn 3 made a damages demand against two interested persons XX. It then waived the application, stating that it considered its own demand unfounded. One participant XX agreed to termination and confirmed having no costs. The other had not been served and did not participate; consent is not inferred from silence. The court examined the association’s right to dispose of the demand and whether waiver was permissible. It found no conflict with law or public interest, accepted the waiver and ended proceedings by its ruling of 14 September 2026. The statement that the demand was unfounded expresses the association’s assessment, rather than an independent judicial finding of no damage or liability. Costs were left with the applicant association, with none reimbursable. The operative part establishes neither a damage amount nor any duty of the individuals to pay. The ruling ends a specific proceeding after voluntary waiver; it is not an award or confirmation that damage was compensated.

Outcome of this decision

Accept the Juuli tn 3 association’s waiver of its damages application and terminate proceedings. Leave costs with the association, with none reimbursable; send the ruling to the participants.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Accept Narva linn, Juuli tn 3 korteriühistu’s waiver of the application. […] 3. The applicant shall bear the litigation costs. There are no reimbursable litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-25-17676Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Juuli tn 7 korteriühistu · 80145988

Damage and insuranceInsurance payment and insurer’s claimApartment association bills, payments and debtsPayment accounting and set-off

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX disputed an obligation to ERGO; the association was the second defendant. The settlement redirects the insurance demand to the association and sets costs.

· Ruling (kohtumäärus) approving a settlementViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-25-17676/28Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Juuli tn 7 and ERGO: settlement waiving recourse against claimant and arranging accounts with association

Ruling (kohtumäärus) approving a settlement · Viru Maakohus · First instance

ERGO Insurance SE · Narva linn, Juuli tn 7 korteriühistu · 10017013 · 80145988

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant XX – negative declaratory claim; defendant – ERGO Insurance SE; defendant – apartment association; claimant’s and defendants’ representatives XX

How it started · editorial summary

Claimant XX disputed an obligation to ERGO; the association was the second defendant. The settlement redirects the insurance demand to the association and sets costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Claimant XX sought a declaration against ERGO Insurance SE and the apartment association Narva linn, Juuli tn 7 that no duty existed to pay the insurer’s recourse demand, a claim for monetary reimbursement. Both legal persons were defendants. The account of the initial claim contains no separate monetary demand by the association against the claimant. At the hearing, the participants settled. ERGO waives recourse against claimant XX and directs a demand concerning the same insured event to the association. The association admits liability within the agreement. The insurer performs the agreed set-off under the association’s insurance contract without applying the 300-euro excess, the association’s contractual share of damage cover. The ruling gives no specific principal insurance compensation amount. Claimant XX waives the claim against both defendants. Under the agreement, the claimant and insurer must each separately reimburse the association 110,40 euros in costs. Participants retain their other costs. These are two separate costs payments to the association, rather than damages paid to the claimant. The court found the terms permissible and enforceable, approved the settlement on 31 August 2026 and terminated proceedings. Half the court fee, 210 euros out of 420 euros paid, is refunded to claimant XX, rather than the association. By agreement, the period to appeal the ruling was reduced to three working days. The association’s admission of liability is agreed by the settlement participants; it is not a judicial finding of proved fault on every circumstance of the insured event. Performance of the mutual accounting arrangements is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the settlement: ERGO waives recourse against claimant XX, directs the demand to the association and performs an insurance set-off without the 300-euro excess; the association admits liability. The claimant waives the claim. The claimant and ERGO each reimburse the association 110,40 euros; other costs remain with the participants. Terminate proceedings; refund claimant XX 210 euros, half the fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1.1. ERGO Insurance SE waives its recourse claim of 8 July 2025 against XX. […] 1.3. XX waives the claim against ERGO Insurance SE and Narva linn, Juuli tn 7 korteriühistu. […] 2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No. 2-25-17676.
First instance
Case 2-26-14504Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu · 80158560

Damage and insuranceInsurance payment and insurer’s claimApartment association bills, payments and debtsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

After payment of the demand, the insurer waived its application; the dispute remained over who should bear litigation costs.

· Ruling terminating proceedingsViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-26-14504/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rahu tn 28a: costs after payment of insurer’s demand

Ruling terminating proceedings · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80158560

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant and insurer – AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ through its Estonian branch; interested person – Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

After payment of the demand, the insurer waived its application; the dispute remained over who should bear litigation costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

AB “Lietuvos draudimas“, through its Estonian branch, brought a claim for damages and late-payment interest against Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu. The court accepted the application on 14 July 2026. After receiving payment on 17 July, the insurer waived the application and asked for costs against the association. The association did not object to termination but disputed costs. It relied on the short delay, voluntary performance and possibility of resolution without court action. It explained that its own insurer had transferred compensation on 25 June, but onward payment to the applicant was delayed by work organisation. The association reported paying 999,15 euros of principal and 1,42 euros of late-payment interest on 17 July. The court accepted the waiver and terminated proceedings. It left costs with the association: the demand was met after filing although the association knew of it beforehand and missed the payment deadline. Internal organisational reasons were not grounds to relieve it of costs. The principal demand was not awarded again. Of the 575 euros requested, the court awarded 470 euros: a 50-euro fee and 420 euros for legal assistance. All 3,5 hours of work were necessary, but the reimbursable hourly rate was reduced from 150 to 120 euros. Statutory late-payment interest accrues on unpaid costs from finality until performance. The court merely explained the option to request refund of half the fee; it did not order a refund in this ruling.

Outcome of this decision

Accept the waiver and terminate proceedings. Award the insurer 470 euros in costs against the association, plus statutory late-payment interest from finality until payment.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate the civil proceedings. […] 3. The interested person Narva linn, Rahu tn 28a korteriühistu shall bear the litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-25-19226Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 80069939

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claimWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerage

How it started · editorial summary

The court established leakage from a common system and the claim transferred to the insurer.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-25-19226/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 32: reimbursement of insured water damage

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80069939

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant and insurer — AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ through AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal; person concerned — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The court established leakage from a common system and the claim transferred to the insurer.

The dispute and the court’s decision

AB “Lietuvos draudimas“, through its Estonian branch, sought reimbursement from Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 32 korteriühistu of 1964 euros paid for water damage and late-payment interest. The association submitted no position, but the court examined evidence of insurance, payment, causation and the amount of damage. The water came from a defective common system: piping and a towel dryer installed by the association. Location inside an individual apartment does not exclude common ownership. The court found a breach of the maintenance duty and a causal link to the damage; no evidence excusing the breach was provided. Insurance payment transferred the owner’s claim to the insurer. The estimate established restoration costs; the mentioned equipment costs were outside the claim. The award was 1964 euros in damages and 117.42 euros in late-payment interest for 23 October 2025 to 25 May 2026, totalling 2081.42 euros. From 26 May 2026 statutory late-payment interest runs on principal until payment. A further 575 euros in costs was awarded with statutory late-payment interest from finality of the order quantifying costs until performance. Payment by the association was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The association was ordered to pay 2081.42 euros in damages and accrued late-payment interest, further late-payment interest on principal, and 575 euros in costs with separate late-payment interest.

A checked extract in this language is not yet available.

First instance
Case 2-23-1406Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu · 80280195

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claim

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer brought a transferred claim concerning a blockage in shared drainage; the association denied breach and pointed to a possible cause inside an apartment.

· Ruling on a damages demandViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-1406/7Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kraavi tn 14: liability for a blockage in shared drainage

Ruling on a damages demand · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80280195

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant, insurer — AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ through its Estonian branch AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal; interested person — Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer brought a transferred claim concerning a blockage in shared drainage; the association denied breach and pointed to a possible cause inside an apartment.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Insurer AB “Lietuvos draudimas“, acting through its Estonian branch, sought reimbursement from Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu of 1876 euros paid for apartment damage in flooding on 11 June 2022, plus interest and costs. It attributed the incident to a blockage in shared drainage and inadequate system maintenance. The association objected that pipes were sound and a foreign object or equipment inside an individual apartment, for which the owner was responsible, might have caused the blockage. It cited a later pipe survey and sought reduced compensation if necessary. The insurer replied that no particular object or owner action had been proved and several apartments were flooded. The court found a blockage in the shared sewer pipe itself. Inspection reports, photographs and explanations did not substantiate faulty individual equipment, and water entering through it did not mean the blockage originated there. A survey conducted much later showed pipe condition on another date, not proper inspection and cleaning before the incident. The association did not prove necessary measures or excusability of the breach. After payment, the owner’s claim passed to the applicant. The court found damage, causation and the association’s liability for maintaining common property proved. It refused to reduce compensation: victim contribution and exceptional unfairness of full compensation were not proved. On 3 July 2025, it awarded 1876 euros and 27,66 euros in interest as of 26 January 2023. Although its calculation produced higher interest, it stayed within the amount claimed. Under the operative part, further statutory interest runs from 27 January 2023 until payment. It also awarded 712 euros in costs, comprising 662 euros for legal assistance and a 50 euro fee, with interest on costs from entry into force.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the application: award 1876 euros in damages, 27,66 euros in accrued late-payment interest, further statutory late-payment interest from 27.01.2023, 712 euros in costs and late-payment interest on costs from entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Grant AB “Lietuvos draudimas“’s application for damages against Narva linn, Kraavi tn 14 korteriühistu.
First instance
Case 2-22-2124Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Joala tn 13, Joala tn 15, Kose tn 1a, Kose tn 3 korteriühistu · 80170785

Damage and insurance

How it started · editorial summary

An individual XX’s damages claim against the Joala–Kose association was pending; the claimant waived it.

· Ruling (kohtumäärus) accepting waiver of a claimViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-2124/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Damages claim against Joala–Kose association ended after claimant’s waiver

Ruling (kohtumäärus) accepting waiver of a claim · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Joala tn 13, Joala tn 15, Kose tn 1a, Kose tn 3 korteriühistu · 80170785

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant XX; defendant – Narva linn, Joala tn 13, Joala tn 15, Kose tn 1a, Kose tn 3 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

An individual XX’s damages claim against the Joala–Kose association was pending; the claimant waived it.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Claimant XX brought a damages claim against Narva linn, Joala tn 13, Joala tn 15, Kose tn 1a, Kose tn 3 korteriühistu. During proceedings, Viru Maakohus received a waiver signed also by the defendant. The claimant confirmed understanding of the consequences and requested each party to bear its own costs and reimbursement of half the fee. The association agreed to the waiver and proposed costs allocation. The court accepted the waiver and ended proceedings without deciding liability for the damage. It explained the consequence under the procedural rules applied: following such termination, the same claim against the same defendant on the same subject matter and grounds cannot be brought again. Of the 315-euro fee paid, the court ordered 157,50 euros refunded. Each party bears other costs. By agreement of the participants, the right to appeal the ruling was excluded, as expressly recorded. The ruling establishes neither the damage amount, merits of the original demand nor voluntary satisfaction of it.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate case 2-22-2124. Leave costs with the respective parties. Refund the claimant half the fee, 157,50 euros. According to its text, the ruling is not appealable because of the parties’ agreement.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The parties shall bear their own litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-22-13958Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu · 80180269

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claim

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought reimbursement for a pipe rupture first from two owners XX, then alternatively from the Uusküla tn 9 association.

· Ruling granting the insurer’s demandViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-22-13958/16Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla tn 9 association ordered to reimburse 2 500 euros for a shared riser rupture

Ruling granting the insurer’s demand · Viru Maakohus · First instance

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80180269

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ through its Estonian branch; two interested individuals XX – proceedings against them terminated; interested person – Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought reimbursement for a pipe rupture first from two owners XX, then alternatively from the Uusküla tn 9 association.

The dispute and the court’s decision

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“, acting through its Estonian branch, initially sought 2 500 euros in insurance compensation paid for water damage on 26 June 2022 from two owners XX. The owners objected that the damaged pipe was shared property within the association’s responsibility. In August 2024, the insurer brought an alternative demand against Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu. The association admitted the incident’s circumstances and agreed that the application should be granted: a shared hot-water riser had ruptured. The insurer then waived its demands against the individuals. The court accepted the waiver and ended proceedings concerning both owners; this is the procedural result of waiver, rather than a separate ruling that no possible owner liability existed. The court examined the demand against the association on its merits. It established that the pipe formed part of the shared system, the association’s duty to monitor its condition and keep it working, a link between breach and insured property damage, and payment of 2 500 euros. The rupture supported a presumption of breach of the maintenance duty; the association neither rebutted it nor proved the breach excusable. Following insurance payment, the corresponding claim passed to the insurer. The association was ordered to pay 2 500 euros and statutory late-payment interest from 27 August 2024. Of 594 euros claimed in costs, 512 euros was awarded: a 50-euro fee and 462 euros for assistance, excluding steps before the demand was made against the association. Interest on costs was also awarded after finality. The two owners’ costs were imposed on the insurer, but no specific reimbursement was set because they supplied no statement.

Outcome of this decision

Accept waiver of the application against two individuals XX and terminate proceedings concerning them. Grant the demand against the association: award 2 500 euros, statutory interest from 27.08.2024 until payment, and 512 euros in costs with interest after finality. Impose the individuals’ costs on the insurer, leaving the amount undetermined because reimbursement was not requested.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Grant the application by AB „Lietuvos draudimas“, through its Eesti filiaal, against Narva, Uusküla tn 9 korteriühistu for damages.
First instance
Case 2-21-19754Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu · 80170383

Damage and insuranceInsurance payment and insurer’s claim

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer waived its demand after payment; the dispute continued over whether the association should bear the costs of going to court.

· Ruling accepting waiver of an application and terminating proceedingsViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-21-19754/14Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste prospekt 18a: insurer’s case ended after payment; reduced costs awarded against association

Ruling accepting waiver of an application and terminating proceedings · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu · AB Lietuvos draudimas · AB Lietuvos draudimas Eesti filiaal · 80170383 · 110051834 · 12831829

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant – AB Lietuvos draudimas (110051834) through its Estonian branch (12831829); interested person – Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu (80170383); applicant’s representative XX; association representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer waived its demand after payment; the dispute continued over whether the association should bear the costs of going to court.

The dispute and the court’s decision

AB Lietuvos draudimas, through its Estonian branch, brought a damages claim against the apartment association Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a. The insurer later waived its application because the principal demand had been met. The association did not object to termination but disputed liability for costs: it said payment was made on the same day the insurer went to court and proceedings could have been avoided. The court accepted the waiver, applying the rules on waiver of a claim by analogy. It did not decide the original damages demand again. On costs, it noted that the association had not previously said it needed extra time to contact its own insurer or reported the results. The court did not know the time of transfer within the day, so the same date for payment and filing did not prove absence of a demand at the time of filing. Costs of 523 euros were requested. The court reduced both preparation time for a standard application and the representative’s reimbursable hourly rate. It found 265 euros for legal assistance and 25 euros for the non-refundable fee portion justified. The ruling of 27 September 2024 ended proceedings, awarded 290 euros in costs against the association and provided for interest on the unpaid amount from finality. Another 25 euros, half the fee paid, is refunded to the insurer by the state. The scheduled hearing was cancelled. The result does not mean a fresh award of the original damage or approval of all legal costs claimed.

Outcome of this decision

Terminate the case following the insurer’s waiver after satisfaction of the demand. The association bears costs; award 290 euros and statutory interest on the unpaid amount from finality. Refund the insurer 25 euros in court fees and cancel the hearing.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 18a korteriühistu shall bear the litigation costs.
First instance
Case 2-20-16862Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 korteriühistu · 80228194

Parking and groundsConstruction of parking facilitiesContracts and servicesPayment, advance payments and refundsDamage and insuranceCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationApartment association board and managementAuthority and representation

How it started · editorial summary

The association brought a joint and several demand against the management company and defendant XX to reimburse an advance paid to the contractor for an unfinished car park.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-20-16862/58Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

P. Kerese tn 19: 3 000 euro parking claim against management company and individual dismissed

Judgment · Viru Maakohus Jõhvi kohtumaja · First instance

Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 korteriühistu · Elamu Teenused Grupp OÜ · 80228194 · 11688471

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 korteriühistu (80228194); defendant — Elamu Teenused Grupp OÜ (11688471); defendant XX — individual and management company board member; claimant’s representative XX; defendants’ representative XX; association board member XX — representative under the works contract

How it started · editorial summary

The association brought a joint and several demand against the management company and defendant XX to reimburse an advance paid to the contractor for an unfinished car park.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The apartment association Narva linn, P. Kerese tn 19 sought 3 000 euros jointly and severally from Elamu Teenused Grupp OÜ and defendant XX: one common amount recoverable from either defendant. The dispute concerned an advance to a contractor for a car park. The association alleged that XX exceeded authority, transferred funds without a proper decision and helped change the design. The works were unfinished and the right to use city land later ended. The defendants replied that the works contract was signed by a board member authorised to represent the association alone. The advance arose under a valid contract and the transfer followed that member’s instruction; consequences of an unfinished project could not be attributed to the payment itself. The court found that XX did lack authority to represent the association in concluding the transaction. But the additional signature did not change the validity of the contract signed by an authorised board member. The association already owed the advance under it. Lack of separate approval by every board member did not turn the transfer into damage caused by the defendant. The court examined liability grounds, including possible breach of the management contract, and found absence of causation decisive: the association had to pay the invoice even without XX’s disputed transfer. Even on a different view, there was no basis to regard non-completion of the car park as a foreseeable result of that act. Design approval problems and the end of land use were not attributed to these defendants either. The judgment of 16 September 2024 dismissed the claim in full and allocated costs to the association, with the amount determined separately. The court acknowledged loss of the advance because the car park was unfinished, but did not find the necessary conditions for liability of these particular defendants; it did not deny the association’s loss.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the association’s joint and several demand for 3 000 euros against Elamu Teenused Grupp OÜ and defendant XX. Allocate all costs to the association; determine their amount in a separate act after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. The claimant shall bear all procedural costs.
First instance
Case 2-20-5099Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu · 80158614

Damage and insuranceLeaks and floodingInsurance payment and insurer’s claimWater and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageApartment association bills, payments and debtsLimitation of claims

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought compensation for 2014 damage from owner XX or alternatively from the Pähklimäe tn 2 association; both pleaded limitation.

· Court orderViru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance · № 2-20-5099/30Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Pähklimäe tn 2: limitation of an insurer’s claim after water damage

Court order · Viru Maakohus Narva kohtumaja · First instance

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ · AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal · Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu · 110051834 · 12831829 · 80158614

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Applicant — AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ through its Estonian branch; Person concerned, owner — XX; Person concerned — Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer sought compensation for 2014 damage from owner XX or alternatively from the Pähklimäe tn 2 association; both pleaded limitation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

AB „Lietuvos draudimas“, acting through its Estonian branch, sought reimbursement of an insurance payment from owner XX or alternatively from Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu. The claim concerned water damage on 12 January 2014 and a broken inlet valve that the insurer considered common property. Statutory late-payment interest from 31 January 2023 and costs were also sought. Both respondents pleaded limitation and disputed responsibility. The insurer argued that payment transferred the injured owner’s statutory claim, subject to a ten-year period. The owner also relied on preventive measures taken, while the association denied breaching its duties. The court agreed that the claim did not arise from the insurance contract. However, transfer preserved the injured owner’s legal position in relation to the association. The court treated those relations as analogous to transactions and applied a three-year, rather than ten-year, limitation period. It linked commencement to payment on 30 January 2014, expiry to 30 January 2017 and filing to 3 April 2020. The application against both respondents was therefore dismissed. The court also discussed conditions for compensation involving common property, but limitation was the decisive ground. The insurer bears costs; their amount is to be determined separately after entry into force of the principal ruling.

Outcome of this decision

Dismiss the application against owner XX and the Pähklimäe tn 2 association. Order AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ to bear costs, to be quantified separately after the principal ruling enters into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
1. Dismiss the application of AB „Lietuvos draudimas“ Eesti filiaal against XX and Narva linn, Pähklimäe tn 2 korteriühistu for compensation for damage.
First instance
Case 2-21-8475Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu · 80352766

Damage and insuranceFireAmount of compensationRepairs and shared propertyBasement, stairwell and shared rooms

How it started · editorial summary

The apartment association Viru tn 20 sought restoration costs for a shared stairwell after a fire; Narva linn entered as legal successor to original participant XX.

· Ruling approving a settlement and terminating proceedingsViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-21-8475/27Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Apartment association Viru tn 20 and Narva linn agreed compensation for damage and costs

Ruling approving a settlement and terminating proceedings · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu · Narva linn · Narva Linnavalitsuse Linnamajandusamet · 80352766 · · 75039729

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu; interested person — Narva linn through Narva Linnavalitsuse Linnamajandusamet; original interested person XX — replaced by a legal successor

How it started · editorial summary

The apartment association Viru tn 20 sought restoration costs for a shared stairwell after a fire; Narva linn entered as legal successor to original participant XX.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Narva linn, Viru tn 20 korteriühistu applied for reimbursement of costs of remedying the consequences of the fire of 19 August 2019. It referred to soot and water damage in the shared stairwell and expenses of 4 767,29 euros. The demand was originally against owner XX; the court later allowed substitution by Narva linn as universal legal successor. In this case the city acted through Narva Linnavalitsuse Linnamajandusamet, rather than as a separate municipal company. After court-allowed negotiation time, the participants submitted an agreement on 31 January 2024. The city undertook to pay the association 3 986,69 euros: 3 178,19 euros for damage and 808,50 euros in costs. Payment is due within three days after entry into force of the ruling approving the settlement and ending the case. Association costs above the agreed 808,50 euros and the city’s own costs remained with the respective participants. The court found the parties entitled to dispose of the dispute and the terms admissible and enforceable. It approved the agreement and terminated proceedings without separately deciding the basis of liability for the fire. The association was also released from reimbursing the state for earlier legal aid, with those costs left to the budget. The association is to receive 25 euros back, half the fee paid. Participants also shortened the appeal period against the ruling to three days after service.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the settlement: Narva linn through Linnamajandusamet pays the association 3 986,69 euros, including 3 178,19 euros for damage and 808,50 euros in costs, within three days after entry into force. Terminate the case. Leave other costs to participants; do not recover state legal aid costs from the association, leaving them to the budget. Refund the association a 25 euro fee.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Terminate proceedings in civil case No 2-21-8475.
First instance
Case 2-23-2145Source: Riigi Teataja ↗

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · 80183173

Water and seweragePipes, risers and sewerageDamage and insuranceLeaks and floodingCause and proof of damageAmount of compensationInsurance payment and insurer’s claimApartment association bills, payments and debtsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer obtained an award for reimbursement of compensation paid for apartment damage. The court linked the damage to the condition of a shared water riser under the association’s management.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-23-2145/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

A. Puškini tn 65: association ordered to reimburse insurer for a shared riser leak

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu · AB Lietuvos draudimas · 80183173 · 110051834

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: applicant — AB Lietuvos draudimas, insurer; interested person — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu; owner XX — recipient of the insurance payment; insurer’s representative XX

How it started · editorial summary

The insurer obtained an award for reimbursement of compensation paid for apartment damage. The court linked the damage to the condition of a shared water riser under the association’s management.

The dispute and the court’s decision

The court awarded AB Lietuvos draudimas 596 euros in damages and interest against the apartment association Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65. It linked the apartment damage to a leak in the shared water riser whose condition the association was obliged to monitor. The insurer compensated owner XX for ceiling damage after the leak and brought the transferred claim against the association for the amount paid. Evidence included the policy, damage notice, photographs, inspection report, repair estimate and payment order. The association received court materials but did not respond or object within the deadline. The court found the source of the water in the shared riser. Ordinary upkeep and repair of that part of the building are performed through the association. It found the riser’s condition improper and causation proved: if properly maintained, water would not have entered the insured apartment. The association supplied no evidence rebutting those findings or justifying breach of duty. The decision rests on assessment of the materials, not merely the absence of a response. The ruling of 3 March 2023 awarded 596 euros in compensation, 38 euros in accrued interest and further statutory interest on 596 euros from 8 February 2023 until performance. The insurer also sought the costs of applying to court. The court reduced reimbursable representative time: the case did not require the three and a half hours claimed. It awarded 290 euros in costs, comprising a 50 euro fee and 240 euros in legal assistance, with statutory interest after entry into force. The award does not confirm that the association has already transferred those sums.

Outcome of this decision

Grant the insurer’s application. Award 596 euros in damages, 38 euros in accrued interest and statutory interest on 596 euros from 08.02.2023 until performance against the association. Allocate costs to it; award 290 euros and statutory interest on costs after entry into force.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
2. Order Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 65 korteriühistu to pay AB “Lietuvos draudimas“ 596 euros in damages and 38 euros in late-payment interest that has fallen due.
First instance