Have you experienced irregularities in claim handling?
This website presents a factual reconstruction of a disputed insurance claim currently subject to civil proceedings in Latvia, specifically in the Civil Court of Krāslava. All statements are based on documented evidence. The purpose is transparency and to identify whether similar procedural patterns have occurred in other cases. No criminal accusation is being made. If you have relevant experiences, you may provide information to the competent court to support the review of similar cases.
Case Summary
The following facts concern a two-story building in Latvia, with offices on the ground floor and apartments on the upper floor, where building matters are known to all occupants. The building has had known issues with moisture over more than 10 years.
In 2023, after many years of operation, the office on the lower floor decided to close. Before closing, two insurance claims were filed for water damage allegedly coming from the upper floor, with claims corresponding to extensive office renovation costs.
The owners above the office have separate insurance policies for this type of event. According to standard procedures, typically the first step is to seek reimbursement from the party that caused the damage. In this case, the claims proceeded directly with the insurer, resulting in reimbursement covering the full renovation of the office, including elements that were previously worn or due for replacement.
In insurance practice, compensation usually reflects the actual value of the damaged part. For example, a 10-year-old vehicle involved in an accident is compensated at its market value, not necessarily the cost of a new replacement. Similarly, older or worn offices may not justify compensation based on entirely new materials.
The timing of the two claims, before planned office renovations, together with high cost estimates, raised questions about the procedures followed. The insurance contract provides compensation for one event of this type. These points are presented as factual observations from available documentation and not as legal conclusions regarding intentional misconduct.
In cases of water damage, standard practice is that only one event is compensated, and the affected parties should be informed promptly to prevent recurrence. In this case, the homeowner of the upper floor was not notified directly. According to the homeowner, water damage in the lower office may have resulted from blocked sewer pipes in common areas. Immediate notification could have clarified the cause and potentially prevented recurrence.
Documentation shows correspondence with the insurance company and submission of requested evidence. Some items, including photos of moisture damage, were provided shortly before court proceedings. Historical imagery from public sources also shows similar conditions predating the claim.
The documents are presented here to illustrate procedural questions and inconsistencies in claim handling. The intent is to document and verify facts, not to assign blame or allege criminal behavior.
NOTE: An eyewitness reported that the actual water damage involved minor drops on a desk.
How to contribute
- Describe any insurance claim experiences with procedural irregularities in as much detail as possible.
- Include dates, policy numbers, and relevant documentation if available.
- Submit information to local authorities or consumer protection agencies as appropriate.
- You may also submit relevant information or documentation directly to the Civil Court of Krāslava, which is handling this case, following applicable legal procedures.
Useful terms
Keywords: insurance claim, claim irregularity, claim procedure, documentation, civil proceedings, Latvia.