BGH: As a rule no compensation

Published on 15.09.2007

for insurance companies in the event of concealment of circumstances relevant to the risk in the insurance application
“In the past, even the future was better.” (Karl Valentin)
An insurance company is sued for payment of damages in the amount of 268,039.38 Euro (household insurance) and 51,150.90 Euro (building insurance). The insured person had concealed a pre-contractual damage to property from the insurer. The policyholder’s claim was dismissed at first and second instance, as the insurer was entitled to compensation “due to a breach of the obligation to provide information when applying for insurance”. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) overturned this decision in its ruling of 7.2.2007 (Case No. IV ZR 5/06).
No compensation from BGB beside the regulations in §§ 16 ff . VVG:
The BGH based its decision on the fact that an insurance company is regularly not entitled to “compensation for damages due to breach of pre-contractual duty of disclosure” (CIC) if the policyholder breaches his pre-contractual duty of disclosure.
Exception:
Deception about circumstances not relevant to driving – Other protected interests. Thus, only in cases outside the scope of application of §§ 16 ff. VVG, for example in the case of intentional immoral damage, or in the case of tortious acts. This is particularly the case if the policyholder would have purchased the insurance “with the preconceived intention” of using the insurance to fraudulently file claims and/or intentionally induce future claims. However, it will rarely be possible to prove this in practice.
Status: 20.4.2007
(expert report 10 7/2007, 98)
Courtesy of www.experten.de.