KÜ Puškini 12: proceedings on the insurer’s claim were reopened

AS Swedbank P&C Insurance sought damages from KÜ Puškini 12. After no response was filed in time, the county court’s default judgment of 27 February 2012 awarded 3291.33 euros and 543.24 euros in costs. On 2 April 2012 the county court refused the association’s application to reopen the case. The association referred to organising its defence, adopting an internal decision and engaging a representative. It had requested an extension, but the request lacked proof of authority. The insurer argued that sufficient time had been available and an earlier request was possible. In this particular case, the circuit court considered the request sufficiently justified in view of the dispute’s nature, importance to the association and the fourteen-day response period. The response submitted with the reopening application supported the expectation that an extension would have enabled a timely response. Following refusal of an extension, the association could not simply be expected to file a response before the default judgment anyway. The refusal was set aside, the application granted and the proceedings reopened. The association was to receive a refund of its 271.62-euro security deposit. Additional reopening costs remained with the applicant regardless of the eventual claim outcome. The merits of the damages claim and the association’s final liability were not determined by this order. After reopening, the court approved a settlement and terminated the case on 6 March 2013. The association acknowledged 700 euros in damage and 125 euros in court fee costs, while the insurer undertook to return 2 466,33 euros of the funds received to the association within ten days after the ruling enters into force. This was an agreed outcome rather than retention of the original 3 291,33-euro damages award; actual repayment was not confirmed.