by Johannes Fiala, Lawyer (Munich), M.B.A. (Univ.Wales), M.M. (Univ.), Certified Financial and Investment Advisor (A.F.A.), EC Expert (C.I.F.E.), Banker (fiala4instalive.instawp.xyz)
Fire Damage Settlement: In connection with a fire loss, the policyholder (PC) reported a loss. The insurer’s employee determined the amount of loss on an inventory fire policy. Because of an alleged underinsurance (objects were outside the building) the insurer reduced the benefit ? the UN agreed (settlement agreement).
Joint error: Later, the insurer and the policyholder recognised a joint error. However, the insurer refused to correct the error and re-bill. The case eventually ended up in the regional court ? later in the Superior Court.
The decision: The judgement of the OLG Hamm (Az. 20 U 100/05) from 14.10.2005 corrected the insurer, who had to pay additional. For connoisseurs of the matter, the decision appears absolutely logical, because if both parties to a contract (here a settlement agreement) are mistaken, this has already led since the introduction of the BGB on 01.01.1900 regularly to an adjustment of the contract (since 01.01.2002 regulated in § 313 II BGB) according to the principles on the discontinuation of the basis of the contract.