On 27 February 2024, the Svea Court of Appeal ruled in case T 8949-21 in favour of an insured party against their insurance company regarding
On 27 February 2024, the Svea Court of Appeal ruled in case T 8949-21 in favour of an insured party against their insurance company regarding the interpretation of terms in a corporate insurance policy.
The Court of Appeal referred to the Supreme Court’s recent rulings in NJA 2021 p. 983 (the Sollentuna Car Fire case) and the judgement dated 25 January 2024 in case T 4849-22 (the Furniture Store in Boden case). It held that the division in the insurance contract between coverage terms and exclusion clauses should not alone determine the burden of proof. This is because the insurer could otherwise control the burden of proof by drafting the policy wording. Instead, the burden of proof should follow general evidentiary rules, such as the parties’ ability to secure evidence.
Applied to the present case, the Court of Appeal found that in corporate insurance, the insurer bears the burden of proving that the damage in question, in this instance, fire, was caused by the insured or someone acting with their consent. After examining the circumstances, the Court concluded that the insurer had not met its burden of proof. The Court therefore ruled that insurance compensation should be paid to the insured party, who was represented by Born.
