Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

As a representative of the Center Party, this draft legislation constitutes a crucial part of the reform planned by the Center Party. We support the substantive amendments within the bill, which aim to increase compensation for non-pecuniary damage, enhance transparency, and establish an obligation for the insurer to assess the extent of the damage. Concurrently, the necessity of addressing disparities in the insurance of electric scooters is noted. A separate legislative proposal is planned to rectify these issues, demonstrating a policy-driven and results-based approach. The scope of the original proposed amendments has been expanded concerning compensation for non-pecuniary damage, and the need to improve transparency and fairness has been emphasized.

The speaker demonstrates a strong knowledge base in the field of traffic insurance and non-pecuniary damage. They cite specific figures (100–2600 euros, 3200 euros) and discuss the influence of case law, mentioning the Supreme Court’s assessments and the longevity of the 2014 regulations. Reference is made to the links between legislation and jurisprudence, as well as the speaker's academic background (a bachelor's thesis on non-pecuniary damage) and the work of specialist Indrek Sirk.

The address is empathetic and fact-based: it uses a compelling example of a 28-year-old woman, but combines it with clear numerical data and case law. The style is calm and solution-oriented rather than polarizing or combative; it involves explaining the facts and rationale, which supports the advancement of the draft bill.

There is insufficient data regarding the frequency of the representative's activity or regular statements during this period; only one isolated communication has been provided. It is unknown whether these occurrences took place regularly throughout the reported time period.

The speech does not quote direct opponents at the political level, but it criticizes current practices in light of the activities of insurance companies and existing case law, emphasizing that the current system is unfair and expensive for people. Potential lobbying related to the regulation of electric scooters is mentioned, and issues of state aid have been discussed; the criticism is primarily aimed at policy and practical implementation, rather than being directed against specific rival political parties.

This demonstrates a willingness to cooperate and the ongoing search for compromises within the coalition: noting that the Center Party faction submitted significant amendments and these were taken into consideration; [it/he/she] expresses the desire to continue working together and also to introduce a separate bill to resolve the disparities concerning motor insurance matters.

The focus is on the national level. The discussion references national legislation, Supreme Court rulings, and national institutions (the Supreme Court, the Estonian Traffic Insurance Fund). It makes no reference to specific regions or the regional economy.

Economically, the emphasis is placed on reducing costs and ensuring fairer compensation, which translates into being "cheaper for people" and increasing transparency (including the publication of the 20 largest non-pecuniary damage compensations). However, potential additional costs are also noted due to restrictions and inequalities affecting certain companies, alongside early criticism from insurance companies regarding the existing system and the burden of costs. This demonstrates a balanced, yet strongly pro-regulatory perspective.

Emphasis is placed on the protection of victims and their families following traffic accidents: the necessity of non-pecuniary damages and the difficulties encountered when seeking compensation for losses caused by the violation are described, aiming to reduce human suffering and the burden of court and legal fees. The situation of young families and the lack of privacy are also mentioned, which highlights the importance of social justice and accessibility to compensation.

The main priorities are improving the system for compensating non-pecuniary damage (specifically, the insurer's obligation to assess the damage and the obligation to disclose information), increasing transparency, and regulating the insurance rights concerning electric scooters. Mention was made of the draft amendments, their adoption, and a separate legislative provision planned for the future that would resolve any remaining inequalities. The need to modify expenditures and increase fairness has also been raised.