In Ukraine insurance policies usually provide for negotiations and court proceedings as the mechanisms for resolving coverage disputes. Insurance contracts typically include detailed terms and conditions governing the insurance settlement process, including a list of documents to be submitted by the policyholder, the insurer’s right to request additional documents or commission expert examinations, and the timeframe for reviewing such documents, etc.

The insurance settlement is completed either by the insurer’s decision to pay the insurance indemnity or by a reasoned decision to refuse payment. Insurance contracts also include dispute resolution clauses, which generally provide that the parties shall first attempt to resolve a coverage dispute through negotiations, and if they fail to reach an agreement, their dispute will be resolved by a competent court.

In practice, the parties rarely engage in negotiations after the insurer has denied the indemnity, as their respective positions on coverage are ordinarily disclosed at the stage of insurance settlement, when any negotiations on the payment of insurance indemnity may already take place. If the insurer issues a written decision refusing payment, this decision is usually final and is not subject to revision during negotiations. The policyholder thereupon refers the dispute to the court.

No. Ukrainian law does not envisage a specific protocol governing pre-action conduct in insurance disputes, nor does it require mandatory pre-trial settlement of a dispute. A policyholder, insurer, or beneficiary is entitled to commence court proceedings if they consider that their rights or interests have been violated.

The legislation of Ukraine does not contain a general procedure for submitting pre-trial demands, as well as requirements for their content and terms of consideration, for the purposes of pre-trial settlement of disputes. In practice, the parties are guided by the provisions of the insurance contract.

Ukrainian courts are capable of handling complex insurance disputes, but in the vast majority of cases, such disputes typically arise out of legal relations governed by Ukrainian law. Unfortunately, Ukrainian courts do not have extensive experience or established practice in resolving insurance disputes involving foreign companies (reinsurers, syndicates, managing agents) yet, or in applying the terms and concepts of the Lloyd’s insurance market, insurance law derived from English law, including, in particular, the Cut Through Clause, Claim Control Clause, Trend Clause, Cutting Clause, etc., as well as standard terms and conditions of aviation and marine insurance, and political risk insurance.

On top of that, Ukrainian courts have limited experience in cases where a court decision may affect the rights or obligations of reinsurers in relation to Ukrainian insurers (reinsureds) and there is a need to involve foreign reinsurers as third parties. In view of this, when Ukrainian courts resolve insurance disputes arising out of the conclusion (amendment, termination), contestation (invalidation), or performance of insurance or reinsurance contracts governed by English law, it may be necessary to clarify the actual content of the contracts or foreign law, in particular, by obtaining opinions of English law experts on the content of English law and the practice of its application by English courts. Such opinions may be provided by legal practitioners or scholars who have a scientific degree and are recognized experts in the field of law.

No, alternative dispute resolution is not mandatory in Ukraine. However, the parties to an insurance dispute may, by mutual agreement, apply to a mediator or enter into an agreement to refer the dispute to an arbitration or an arbitral tribunal.

In this regard, Ukrainian procedural law provides that a court shall dismiss a lawsuit if the parties have entered into an agreement to refer the dispute to arbitration or international commercial arbitration, provided that the defendant has filed objections to the resolution of the dispute in court no later than the commencement of the merits of the case and before the submission of the first statement on the merits, unless the court finds that such an agreement is invalid, expired or cannot be enforced.

Under Ukrainian procedural law, a party that wins a dispute in a state court is entitled to reimbursement of court costs incurred in connection with the proceedings, including legal fees, court fee, expenses related to the engagement of translators, experts, expert examinations, etc., at the expense of the other party. Court costs shall be supported by appropriate primary documents, including contracts, invoices, acts of services rendered, documents confirming the scope of services rendered, the amount of time spent, etc.

The losing party has the right to file a motion to reduce the amount of costs if it does not agree with the amount claimed. The issue of awarding court costs is decided by the court based on evidence submitted by the party, the reality of the costs (establishing their validity and necessity), the reasonableness of their amount, considering the specific circumstances of the case and the financial condition of both parties.

The Ukrainian court is not obliged to award the party in whose favour the judgment was rendered all of claimed expenses if, based on the principles of fairness and the rule of law, it finds that the amount of the fee agreed by the party and its lawyer is excessive in relation to the other party to the dispute, taking into account the complexity of the case and the time spent by the lawyer.

Furthermore, Ukrainian law and court practice provide for the possibility of agreement between the party and the lawyer to pay the latter an additional remuneration for winning the case (a ‘success fee’).
During the handling of insurance disputes in arbitration proceedings or before arbitral tribunals in Ukraine, policyholders in whose favour a decision is rendered may also be reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with the dispute, provided that supporting documents have been previously submitted.

Yes, Ukrainian court proceedings provide for the right to an appellate review of a case, as well as the right to a cassation appeal in cases specified by law.

A party to a lawsuit that disagrees with a decision of a court of first instance has the right to file an appeal. Depending on the type of proceedings (civil or commercial), the time limit for filing an appeal against a court decision on the merits is 30 or 20 days, respectively; the time limit for filing a cassation appeal is also 30 or 20 days, respectively.

In respect of arbitral awards, Ukrainian law provides for two court procedures: 1) recognition and enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards, and 2) appeal against an international commercial arbitration award if Ukraine is the place of arbitration.

Under the first procedure, the Ukrainian court decides on the recognition and enforcement of an international commercial arbitration award in Ukraine, verifying the legal grounds for the binding nature of such an award, as well as whether the arbitral tribunal complied with the formal requirements for consideration of the case.

Under the second procedure, the Ukrainian court considers whether the international arbitration complied with the formal requirements for consideration of the dispute and decides whether to set aside the award in full or in part or to refuse to do so. Both procedures involve filing relevant applications with the general court of appeal as a court of first instance. Appeals in these procedures are filed with the cassation court – the Supreme Court as a court of second instance. Ukrainian law does not provide for a further cassation review in these procedures.

Policyholders are required to disclose to insurers all information known to them that is material to the insurer’s decision to enter into an insurance contract. The amount of information that the policyholder must provide to the insurer depends on the type of insurance and its terms and conditions.

Before entering into an insurance contract, the policyholders must fill out a written insurance application, in which they inform the insurer of the circumstances known to them that are essential for assessing the insurance risk (determining the probability and likelihood of an insured event and the amount of possible losses), and/or provide other information necessary for the insurer to decide whether to enter into an insurance contract, including the existence of an insurable interest, and/or the amount of the insurance premium, the object of insurance, and information on other insurance contracts covering the insured object.

The duty of disclosure does not cease at inception of the policy. During the term of the insurance contract, the policyholder is obliged to notify the insurer of any change in circumstances that are material to the assessment of the insurance risk (determining the probability and likelihood of an insured event and the amount of possible losses) and/or other circumstances that affect the amount of the insurance premium.

The insurer may refuse to enter into an insurance contract if the policyholder fails to provide sufficient information. If, after the conclusion of the insurance contract, it is established that the policyholder has provided false information about the object of insurance, circumstances that are essential for assessing the insurance risk, or the fact of the insured event, this may constitute grounds for refusal to pay insurance indemnity or for invalidation of the insurance contract by a court decision. The insurer also has the right to claim damages. If the policyholder’s failure to disclose information has caused financial losses to the insurer (e.g., underpayment of insurance premiums), the insurer may seek damages in court.

The policyholder’s state of mind at the time of entering into the insurance contract may be relevant if it is established that the policyholder did not understand the consequences of their actions and/or was unable control them at the time of entering into the contract. In such cases, the insurance contract may be invalidated by a court.

Ukrainian insurance law does not expressly regulate specific types of provisions prohibited in insurance contracts.

At the same time, Ukrainian civil law, which applies to all types of contracts, including insurance contracts, establishes general prohibitions applicable to contractual terms. In particular, the content of a contract may not contradict the Civil Code of Ukraine, other acts of civil law, the interests of the state and society, or moral principles. A contract may not violate a public order, including being aimed at violating constitutional rights and freedoms, destroying or damaging property of an individuals, legal entities, the state or territorial communities, or unlawfully taking possession of such property. Contracts may not contain provisions that exclude or limit liability for an intentional breach of an obligation, or provisions that waive the right to apply to court. Any waiver of the right to apply to court is invalid.

An insurance contract may not contain a provision introducing a limitation period for the policyholder’s claim against the insurer for payment of insurance indemnity, as Ukrainian law provides that no limitation period applies to claims of the policyholder (insured person) against the insurer for an insurance indemnity.

Ukrainian legislation does not provide for the concept of ‘utmost good faith’. Instead, Ukrainian civil law is based on the general principle of good faith, which is realized in the policyholder’s obligation to provide all necessary information about themselves, the subject, object of insurance and insured interest, and circumstances that are essential for assessing the insurance risk, as well as the insurer’s obligation to provide full information about themselves, the insurance product, and the applicable terms and conditions.

The absence of a contractual relationship between the parties prior to the conclusion of the contract does not mean that the parties have no obligations to each other at the pre-contractual stage. Even though the parties are not yet bound by a contract, they are required to act lawfully, namely to behave in good faith, reasonably consider the counterparty’s interests, and refrain from unfair acts or omissions.

Good faith is a certain standard of behaviour characterized by honesty, openness and respect for the interests of the other party to the contract or the relevant legal relationship. The principles of fairness, good faith and reasonableness include, inter alia, the obligation to consider the interests of other persons in civil turnover, exercise reasonable care, negotiate in good faith, act in accordance with their previous statements and the rules of fair business practice (including the prohibition of contradictory behaviour). The principle of good faith is a general legal principle, and Ukrainian courts are increasingly applying it in practice.

Ukrainian law and prevailing practice in the insurance market do not draw a significant distinction between consumer and non-consumer insurance contracts; therefore, implied terms are generally common to both types of contracts.

Other implied terms applicable to insurance contracts include, in particular:

1) the insurer’s obligation to provide the policyholder, prior to entering into an insurance contract, with information about the insurer, its licences and ways to verify their validity, the list of services, insurance procedure, terms and conditions, payments payable by the policyholder, as well as mechanisms and means of protecting the rights of financial services consumers;

2) the policyholder’s obligation to inform the insurer of the circumstances known to the policyholder that are essential for assessing the insurance risk and the insurer’s decision to enter into an insurance contract, including information about the object of insurance and the existence of other insurance contracts covering the same object against the same risks (‘openness principle’ and ‘reasonable notice of risk’);

3) the requirement of a direct causal link between the insured event and the loss incurred by the policyholder;

4) the policyholder’s obligation to take all possible measures to prevent the occurrence of an insured event and to mitigate its consequences, where provided for by the terms of the contract (“the principle of prevention and minimisation of losses”);

5) the principle that insurance indemnity may not exceed the amount of direct damage caused to the policyholder and/or other person specified in the insurance contract.

Ukrainian law does not generally limit the insurer’s right to rely on defences depending on the type (class) of insurance and/or the actual beneficiary under the insurance contract. As a rule, insurers exercise their right to defence by rejecting an insurance claim on the grounds that an incident is not covered by the insurance policy or falls within the policy exclusions.

As a rule, the occurrence of damage to the insured property, or harm to the health or life of the policyholder, beneficiary or insured person, constitutes the legal ground for the ‘activation’ of insurance coverage under an insurance contract. No limitation period applies to a claim of the insured (the insured person) against the insurer for an insurance payment (insurance indemnity).

Standard terms and conditions of voluntary property insurance usually exclude the following types of losses: 1) losses caused by military and political risks (Political Violence Insurance); 2) losses caused by nationalisation, confiscation, expropriation of property (CEND Insurance); 3) losses caused by cybercrimes or illegal interference with computer equipment (Cyber Insurance/Cyber Crime Insurance); 4) losses caused by radiation and radioactive contamination (Nuclear Exclusion).

In addition, indirect losses (such as lost profits, non-pecuniary damage, fines, penalties and other sanctions) are generally not covered by insurance contracts, unless expressly provided for therein.

The courts are obliged to construe ambiguity in policy wordings in favour of the insured only in one specific case: where ambiguity concerns the insured’s obligations under the insurance contract.

In all other instances, the courts are guided by the general principles of contract interpretation, under which ambiguous contractual wording is interpreted in accordance with its literal meaning, the true intention of the parties, and established business customs. Where it is impossible to determine the true meaning of a contractual provision using these methods, courts may apply the principle of ‘contra proferentem’, i.e. interpret the ambiguity against the party that drafted the contract (the insurer).

The ‘but for’ or ‘proximate’ test of causation is not used in Ukrainian law or in court practice to determine the causal relationship.

Insurance laws and insurance contract terms usually require a direct causal link between the losses (consequences of an insured event) and insurance perils as a prerequisite for insurance indemnity.

In some cases, depending on the circumstances, a causal link can be verified by expert examination. An expert opinion may be provided at the request of a party to the case or upon a court ruling on call for examination. An expert examination may be appointed by the court either at the request of a party to the case or by its own initiative if technical knowledge is required to estimate the cause(s) of damage and any party has provided an expert opinion on the same.

The law stipulates that an insurance contract applies only to those losses that are covered by the insurance coverage (have a causal link with the insured perils).

If the loss is stemmed from multiple causes, the insurer must determine a definite part of the loss directly stemming from the insured peril(s) and, consequently, covered by the policy.

In view of that, the insurance indemnity shall be paid only in respect of the part of the losses covered by the policy. Sometimes insurance contracts stipulate that if it is not possible to determine to what extent losses are caused by insured risks and to what extent by other causes that are not insured risks, this may be grounds for refusing to pay insurance indemnity.

Depending on the nature of the policyholder’s breach of the insurance contract, the insurer has the right to: 1) refuse to pay the insurance indemnity; 2) reduce the amount of insurance indemnity; 3) file a claim for invalidation of the insurance contract; 4) consider the insurance contract terminated (in accordance with the law or the terms of the policy); 5) recover damages or loss caused by the insured’s actions (or lack thereof).

Insurance law is silent on this issue, so this specific case may be regulated by the terms of the insurance contract. However, if the contract is entered into by the policyholder in favour of the insured person or a third-party beneficiary, the policyholder’s failure to fulfil its obligations to pay the insurance premium may result in termination of the insurance contract, i.e. termination of insurance coverage for all.

No. Policyholders are no longer required to comply with policy terms and conditions. The law does not impose an unconditional obligation on the insured to comply with the provisions of the insurance contract.

In this case, everything depends on the will of the policyholder. If the policyholder intends to continue the legal relationship with the insurer and/or there is still a need/sense to continue the contract, the policyholder may, but is not obliged to, continue to comply with the terms of the insurance contract even after the insurer refuses to pay the insurance coverage.

At the same time, the policyholder has the right to cease paying insurance premiums, which results in termination of the contract. The insurer is not entitled to any legal mechanisms aiming to oblige the policyholder to continue the performance of the insurance contract, i.a. paying the insurance premiums.

The insurer pays the insurance indemnity in accordance with the terms of the contract, in particular, considering the real value of the property (amount of loss), deductible, depreciation of the property, and insurance limits.

A loss adjuster or an insurance company’s expert assesses the damage. Depending on the insured property, the assessment of the value of the loss may involve an external expert(s) in the relevant field.

The parties may agree on the amount of damage and compensation at their own discretion, without any expert assessments, by signing an agreement to this effect.

If the sum insured is a certain proportion of the real value of the insured property, the insurance indemnity shall be paid in the same proportion of the real value of the insured property, unless otherwise provided for in the terms of the insurance contract.

This issue is not regulated by insurance law but may be regulated by the terms of the insurance contract at the parties’ discretion.

Yes. An insurer that has paid an insurance indemnity under a property insurance contract acquires the right to claim against the person responsible for the damage to the extent of the amount of payment. Since the insurer is entitled to recover from a third party only up to the amount of the insurance indemnity paid, such recoveries will pass solely to the insurer. Furthermore, the insured party reserves the right to demand the reimbursement of losses not covered by the insurance indemnity from the third party.

In accordance with the applicable legislation pertaining to the repercussions of a breach of obligation, the insured is entitled to claim for damages caused by a delay in the payment of insurance indemnity. In such instances, the insured party is obligated to provide substantiated evidence that validates the occurrence of the loss and the existence of a demonstrable causal link between the delay and the loss. It is rare for Ukrainian insurance market participants to use this remedy to restore their rights.

The liability of insurers for late payment is typically confined to the imposition of a penalty (fine) in the amount established by the insurance policy or law, inflationary costs, and three percent per annum of the overdue amount, unless another interest rate is established by contract or law.

Yes. Claims can be made against insurance policies taken out by companies that have since become insolvent.

If an insurer that entered into an insurance contract has become insolvent and subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the policyholder has a right to lodge the monetary claims against such an insurer in bankruptcy proceedings.

If the policyholders’ monetary claims against the insurer under the insurance contract arose after the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings, the policyholder has the right to file a claim against the insurer within the bankruptcy proceedings.

Also, insureds under insurance contracts that are terminated due to the court declaring the insurer bankrupt and opening a liquidation procedure have the right to demand a refund of the insurance premium paid to the insurer. This refund is proportionate to the difference between the term for which the insurance contract was concluded and the term during which the insurance contract was actually in force.

On top of that, a specific mechanism for protecting the rights of policyholders has been established in the field of civil liability insurance for vehicle owners. Insurers that intend to carry out activities in the field of civil liability insurance for vehicle owners are required to participate in the Motor (Transport) Insurance Bureau of Ukraine (MTIBU) and pay premiums that form a special fund. In the event of bankruptcy of an insurance company participating in the MTIBU, losses are reimbursed from the fund.

Currently, Ukrainian legislation does not explicitly provide for the possibility (mechanisms) for filing class actions, including in the insurance sector. However, participation of several claimants and (or) defendants (procedural complicity) is allowed if: 1) the subject matter of the dispute is the common rights or obligations of several claimants or defendants; 2) the rights or obligations of several claimants or defendants arose from the same ground; 3) the subject matter of the dispute is homogeneous rights and obligations.

The most significant current challenges in the field of insurance litigation are arising from martial law, leading to disputes over payment of insurance indemnity under the War and Political Risk Insurance Policies. These policies are commonly reinsured by foreign insurers and governed by foreign law. Responses to questions 3 and 30 make it clear that Ukrainian courts sometimes lack the expertise to effectively resolve complex insurance disputes involving foreign reinsurers and legal concepts that are not inherent in the Ukrainian legal system. Consequently, the timely resolution of such disputes poses a significant challenge to Ukrainian courts.

Wartime circumstances lead to an increase in the number of insurance events (damage (or loss) to property, health or life). This, as a result, increase the number of insurance disputes, which can place a notable burden on the respective courts.

Technology has already had a significant impact on dispute resolution in Ukraine and is expected to further transform insurance disputes. For example, the Ukrainian justice sector operates an electronic court system that enables the electronic filing of procedural documents, electronic service of court notices, remote access to case files and participation in court hearings by videoconference. Ongoing reforms focus on transitioning from a mixed paper-electronic model to a predominantly digital format of court proceedings.

A major development in this area is the approval in May 2025 by the State Judicial Administration in Ukraine of a new Concept for the Unified Judicial Information and Communication System. It provides for a comprehensive redesign of judicial digital infrastructure, including full electronical case management, automated case allocation, extraterritorial consideration of cases, integration with enforcement and pre-trial systems, and the possibility of conducting all procedural actions online. These measures are expected to significantly improve efficiency and consistency in complex insurance disputes involving extensive documentation.

The Concept also provides for the gradual introduction of artificial intelligence as an assistive tool within the judiciary. In particular, AI is envisaged for functions such as document recognition and classification, anonymisation of sensitive data, semantic search of case law, verification of references to legislation, automated translation, summarisation of documents, generation of draft procedural documents and identification of deviations from established Supreme Court case law. Importantly, AI is positioned as a supporting technology and not a substitute for judicial decision-making, with human control remaining mandatory at all stages.

Implementation is planned in stages. During 2025-2026, the focus is on completing core electronic document management and priority subsystems. During 2026-2028, additional and experimental functionalities, including those based on big data analytics and AI technologies, are expected to be developed and tested.

However, there are currently no specific provisions in Ukrainian legislation governing the use of AI for analysing case materials, resolving disputes, or drafting judgments. Existing legal frameworks contain only general provisions on digitalisation and automation of justice, which do not define specific mechanisms, limitation, responsibilities or ethical safeguards for AI use in adjudication. In other words, there are no clear legislative acts yet that define the legal status or regulatory framework for AI in the judicial system.

Consequently, there are ongoing discussions in Ukraine regarding the utilisation of AI in litigation. However, practical implementation requires further research, regulation and consideration of ethical implications.

Since 2014 (after the occupation of Donetsk and Luhansk Regions by Russia and the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula) and in recent years, Ukraine has seen a significant increase in disputes related to losses caused by political (military) risks (Political Violence Insurance). These disputes relate to losses incurred, in the vast majority, to large property objects (commercial and industrial complexes, wind and solar power plants, ships and aircraft, terminals, elevators, equipment, inventories) located in the insured territories affected by military operations. There has also been an increase in the number of disputes over losses caused by business interruption caused by the destruction or damage to the insured property or restriction of business activities as a result of military actions.

In our opinion, as of now, the main growth areas in the insurance disputes sector in Ukraine are court disputes over Political Violence Insurance, under insurance (reinsurance) contracts with the participation of foreign insurance companies of the Lloydʼs insurance market, which contain elements, concepts, doctrines of English insurance law that are not well-known for Ukrainian legislation, court practice and doctrine.

Currently, there are very few examples of court practice in the named cases. However, we expect that the Supreme Court upon reviewing insurance disputes as a cassation instance will guide the lower courts by forming the court practice that addresses complicated legal concepts of the foreign insurance law.