Financial Services, Insurance, Latvia, Legislation, Markets and Companies, Real Estate

“We see lawsuit as an inevitable stage of a legal dispute between the companies since no other solution was found. Nevertheless, we are open for constructive negotiations if Ergo Insurance SE is willing to reach a consensus outside the courtroom. The documents submitted to the court clearly demonstrate why this particular event should qualify as an insured event. We agree that one of the causes of the tragedy was a design mistake. However, as found out in the state expertise and flagged also in the criminal case, the actions of the persons involved in the construction works contributed to the roof collapse, which is also the subject of a lawsuit from the developer of the destroyed property against the particular construction company,” explains Dace Silava - Tomsone, lawyer and representative of SIA Tineo.

As announced earlier, this is not the only insurance indemnity that ERGO Insurance SE refuses to pay in regards to losses suffered as a result of Zolitude tragedy. In April 2017 SIA Tineo together with SIA Maxima Grupe (SIA Maxima Latvija parent company) has already filed a claim amounting to 5.34 million euro under a Property Insurance Policy in the Vilnius Regional Court, which the Court has already accepted for review. This claim was filed in Lithuania because the insurance umbrella agreement between the parties was concluded in Lithuania.

ERGO's comment

The ERGO insurance company always settles claims in accordance with the terms of the relevant policy.  Media information suggests that SIA Tineo disagreed with ERGO in terms of the fact that an insurance case has not been approved in accordance with the policy.  ERGO has not received documents from the Vidzeme District Court in Rīga, which means that we are unaware at this time of the company’s arguments.

ERGO must note that expert analysis as part of the criminal case found that a design error was the main reason for the collapse of the building, and SIA Tineo has admitted to this fact in its announcements to the media.  We also wish to stress the fact that the insurance policy did not include additional coverage in addition to other terms – coverage that speaks to covering losses caused by the design mistake.

After receiving a request, ERGO will examine the arguments from the petitioner and then decide what to do next.