FINLAND Trends and Developments Contributed by: Jussi Laasonen and Saara Järvinen, Ruoholahti Law
retailers, marketplace providers, and logistics service providers. The above means that a new group of economic oper - ators whose products have not previously fallen within the scope of the Product Liability Act will become sub - ject to product liability insurance. Accordingly, these changes are likely to increase demand for product liability insurance in Finland. The rise in insurance premiums is expected to be above average in sectors where risk assessment is particularly difficult. These sectors include, for exam - ple, software and technology development industries, where risks are often intangible and rapidly changing. As these new risks remain, at least to some extent, still unknown, it is possible that new exclusion clauses will be introduced into product liability insurance poli - cies. However, defining digital harm comprehensively in policy terms may present its own specific chal - lenges, which may in future manifest as ambiguities and interpretative disputes concerning the content of insurance contracts. In the report by the working group of the Ministry of Justice, it has been noted that if a particular sector were to be left without adequate insurance cover - age, this would in practice prevent some SMEs from operating within that field. This could be considered a possibility. In such circumstances, only large corpora - tions would be capable of bearing the sector-specific risks and continuing operations without comprehen - sive insurance protection. Consequently, business activities in the technology sector, for example, could in future become concentrated solely among major market participants, thereby reducing innovation and competition, and potentially affecting consumers through both higher product prices and the quality of products available. The new provisions of the Product Liability Act will improve the ability of claimants to file claims under the Act, as the monetary threshold currently contained in the existing product liability legislation will be removed entirely. As a result, claims based on product liabil - ity legislation are likely to be brought more frequently than at present. Since the current threshold is relative -
ly low (approximately EUR400), the change may not necessarily have a significant impact on overall claims expenditure, but it is likely to increase the number of claims. At present, deductibles under product liabil - ity insurance policies in Finland are higher than the above-mentioned EUR400 threshold. Consequently, this change may create pressure to reduce deductible levels or increase demand for various claims handling services. Another significant reform strengthening the position of injured parties is the easing of the burden of proof, particularly in technically or scientifically complex cas - es. According to the European Commission’s assess - ment of the previous Product Liability Directive, the most common reason consumers refrained from seek - ing compensation for product liability damage was their inability to prove sufficiently either the product’s defectiveness or the causal link between the defect and the damage suffered. In future, under the new leg - islation, a product will be presumed defective where it is excessively difficult or impossible for the claimant to prove the product’s lack of safety, provided that the claimant can nevertheless demonstrate that it is likely that the product contains a safety defect. The new provision on the disclosure of evidence also strengthens the position of injured parties. A prod - uct will in future be presumed defective if the party from whom compensation is sought fails to comply with a court order to disclose or produce evidence. In practice, the obligation to produce and disclose evi - dence may require considerable time and resources from businesses, particularly in technically complex cases, in order to present the evidence in a manner that is easily understandable. Thus, merely handing over materials to the claimant may not necessarily be sufficient under the provision. Rather, the requirement that evidence be presented “in an easily understandable manner” may oblige a business, for example, to highlight relevant parts of the material or prepare a concise summary of it. At the same time, however, the provision may also encourage product manufacturers to co-operate more effectively in the compensation process. Such co-operation may benefit consumer claimants, among other things, by reducing their legal costs.
124 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook