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. Due to an alleged underinsurance (objects were outside the building), the insurer reduced the benefit – the policyholder agreed (settlement agreement).
Common Misconception:
Later, the insurer and the insured realized a common mistake. However, the insurer refused to correct the error and re-bill. The case eventually ended up before the Regional Court – later before the Higher Regional Court.
Decision:
The judgement of the OLG Hamm (Az. 20 U 100/05) of 14.10.2005 corrected the insurer, who had to pay additional costs. For connoisseurs of the matter, the decision appears absolutely logical, because if both parties to a contract (in this case a settlement agreement) are mistaken, this has regularly led to an adjustment of the contract since the introduction of the BGB on 01.01.1900 (since 01.01.2002 regulated in § 313 II BGB) according to the principles on the discontinuation of the basis of the contract.
by Dr. Johannes Fiala
