Estonian supervisor explains when service packages amount to insurance

Finantsinspektsioon has explained how to distinguish licensable insurance activity from an ordinary service package. Its letter of 12 August 2026 addresses arrangements that may transfer risk without being labelled insuranceFI. The supervisor says the need for an insurance authorisation must be assessed case by case, by reference to the activity’s actual economic substance and objective characteristicsFI.

The letter identifies payment of a premium, independent assumption of the customer’s risk and an obligation to compensate loss or provide another compensatory performance as central features of insurance activityFIFIFI. The occurrence of the insured risk must be uncertainFI. Independent risk assumption means taking on the customer’s risk separately from the provider’s other activity or a personal relationship between the partiesFI.

The purpose of the transaction matters. Where its principal aim is to protect the customer against an unforeseen financial loss, with compensation financed from premiums collected collectively from customers, the supervisor characterises the activity as insuranceFI. Where the main purpose is readiness to provide a specific service and to provide it when needed, the arrangement may instead be an ordinary service contractFI.

Uncertain demand does not settle the classificationFI. A service provider may face more or less use than expected, and only some customers may actually need the service. Equally, membership, maintenance and service packages may share costs across customers. The key distinction in the letter is what those pooled payments finance: the provider’s own service-delivery costs, or compensation for a customer’s loss unrelated to providing that serviceFI.

The supervisor illustrates the distinction with two arrangements costing €30 per month. One gives access to the provider’s own healthcare services, including consultations and specified tests. The other reimburses healthcare expenses, pays for hospital treatment or covers medicines, taking on the customer’s healthcare-cost risk. The identical monthly price does not make the two arrangements equivalent.

Providers should assess what they promise customers and what payments fund, involving legal advice where needed. The letter places primary responsibility for assessing the need for authorisation on the person carrying out the activityFI. Its statutory references are § 2(1) of Kindlustustegevuse seadus and §§ 422–423 of VõlaõigusseadusFI.