Read to the end, you won't regret it!
In an insurance case, such as a flooded apartment, insurers often try to get away with minimal effort. You receive a calculation for local wallpaper gluing or replacing a couple of tiles, and they call it restoration. But if your renovation is only a year old, such „patches" not only ruin the appearance but also violate laws and building codes.
Let's analyse with concrete arguments why the position of „paint over and forget" does not hold up in Estonian law.
According to Estonian law (VÕS § 127), the purpose of insurance is to return the object to the condition it was in a second before the accident. If the renovation was brand new in February 2025, then any partial intervention is already damage. „Patches" on new surfaces inevitably reduce the market value of the apartment. The law (VÕS § 132) clearly states: if a thing cannot be restored to ideal condition, the insurer is obliged to compensate for the decrease in its value.
Take the bathroom, for example. Modern waterproofing is like a „wet cocoon". When you remove some of the tiles, the hermetic seal of the layer is irreversibly broken. According to RYL standards, partial restoration of waterproofing is not possible: it must be a unified whole. By trying to save money today, the insurer deprives you of the system's 15–20 year reliability, offering instead a two-year guarantee on a „good enough" style patch.
Furthermore, if the insurer contests your calculation and offers a cheaper option, it is the insurer who must prove that the repair it proposes restores the pre-damage value of the item at least as well as the work you chose. The injured party is not always required to take the cheapest repair option: the repair must ensure maximum restoration of the previous value and preserve the manufacturer's warranty. Basis: Supreme Court ruling of 01.06.2023 in civil case No. 2-21-5187/14, paras 12, 14 and 17.
If laminate is laid as a single surface without thresholds, it cannot be replaced „piece by piece". The locking connections are damaged during dismantling, and a new batch of material always differs in tone. The Supreme Court has explained that painting, wallpapering or replacing the floor covering only at the directly damaged spot does not, as a rule, achieve the aim of restoring the situation that existed before the damage, and that in some cases a degree of enrichment of the owner is unavoidable. Basis: Supreme Court ruling of 26.06.2025 in civil case No. 2-20-5374/68, para 16. The TTJA commission decision says the same: rus.postimees.ee
Wet mineral wool inside walls is not just a damp insulation material. It is an ideal environment for mould and allergens. Leaving it inside „until dry" means putting your family at risk. The same applies to electrical wiring: any „twists" and attempts to preserve soaked cables in damp zones are safety violations and a fire hazard.
Many people forget: even if the policy does not have a separate line for „rental housing", the law is still on the client's side. The Supreme Court (decision No. 3-2-1-82-16) confirmed: the inability to use one's home for its intended purpose is direct property damage.
If the bathroom is dismantled, dust is flying from the glass wool and moisture collectors are humming, it is impossible to live there, especially with a child. In this case, the insurer is obliged to compensate for the rent of an equivalent temporary residence. You should not lose comfort because an accident happened to you.
Insurance is not charity, but a service you paid for to protect your property. If you are offered „cosmetics" where capital restoration is needed, do not be afraid to demand an independent expertise and refer to the law. Justice in insurance is when your home is new again after renovation, not „a little patched up".
If you are afraid to enter into a dispute with the insurer on your own or lack experience in properly insuring your property, contact me. I am on your side by law.
For sharing: forgiveness of sins, relief of the heart and cleansing of conscience.