In a judgment dated 27 February 2024 in case T 8949-21, the Svea Court of Appeal upheld a claim by the policyholder against his insurance company regarding the interpretation of insurance terms in a business insurance policy. The Court of Appeal found, against the background of the Supreme Court’s new practice in NJA 2021 p. 983 (Car fire in Sollentuna) and the judgment of 25 January 2024 in case T 4849-22 (Möbelvaruhuset in Boden), that the division of the insurance contract between scope and exception conditions should not be alone decisive for the placement of the burden of proof. This is because the insurance company can in that case control the placement of the burden of proof through the design of the insurance terms. Instead, the placement of the burden of proof should follow general burden of proof rules, such as the parties’ ability to secure evidence.
Applied to the present case, the Court of Appeal ruled that even in the case of business insurance, the insurance company is required to substantiate an objection that the damage in question in the form of fire had been caused by the policyholder or someone who acted with his consent. After examining the circumstances of the case, the Court of Appeal found that the insurance company had not met its burden of proof. The Court of Appeal therefore determined that insurance compensation must be paid to the policyholder, who was represented by Born Advokater.
Responsible from Born:
Responsible partner Johan Svahn and advokat Andrea Röjmalm.