Rürup pension: As the first lawyer in Germany, the well-known Munich lawyer Dr. Johannes Fiala expressly recommends the search for a stupid insurance agent. The statement is supported by the actuary and co-author Peter A. Schramm. This applies in particular to Rürup contracts, which promise attachment security during the savings phase.
Ensure security against seizure
In an article for ProContra from 26.04.2016 (procontra Online: Are basic pensions unseizable? Are basic annuities unseizable?), lawyer Dr. Johannes Fiala* and the mathematician Peter A. Schramm** point out that basic annuity contracts (Rürup annuity) in sales are often wrongly described as seizure-proof. At the same time, however, Dr. Fiala shows a simple way how actual security of seizure can be achieved by a small detour.
Stupid insurance intermediary = final attachment security
The detour described by lawyer Dr. Fiala and actuary Schramm leads via a stupid insurance broker. Dr. Fiala remarks in the article that it might be necessary to change your current mediator, because he might not be stupid enough. Apparently, however, Dr. Fiala is firmly convinced that there are still enough stupid intermediaries who have either not been properly informed about the actual circumstances of the basic pension or have been deliberately mistrained.
Documentation is decisive
It is important, Dr. Fiala continued, to insist on consultation and documentation, to address the issue of 100% attachment security in the basic pension savings phase and to ensure that the attachment security is recorded in the written documentation without any ifs and buts. An additional confirmation by the insurer could not be harmful in order to make the insurer liable. The latter is likely to be particularly true if the stupid insurance intermediary is a broker, because the broker is always liable in the first place. If, however, it is no longer possible to obtain compensation from the insurance broker (e.g. because the broker’s VSH does not pay due to stupidity/cardinal error), then it is quite gratifying if the insurer’s assets are then available as liability assets.
A further option is to retrieve the money paid in under a Rürup contract in many cases at a later date if the basic annuity contract subsequently turns out to be uneconomical. Here too, the false assurance of attachment security at the time of the conclusion of the contract is important. This would then give rise to the possibility of a challenge on the grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation or compensation for damages due to immoral damage to one’s own pension assets.
In addition, Dr. Fiala is advised to file a timely declaratory action against insurance intermediaries/insurers already during the term of the contract, so that intermediaries or insurers are liable for the loss due to the loss of basic pension claims acquired through contributions as a result of the attachment of capital during the savings phase. This would then ensure in advance that intermediaries or insurers would have to pay for the loss of basic pension rights acquired through contributions as a result of the attachment of capital during the savings phase.
Should Riester pensions and occupational pension schemes also only be taken out with stupid brokers?
Should Riester and occupational pension schemes also be concluded with a “dumb broker”? This question was put by an insurance messenger to the lawyer Dr. Fiala. The editors are very curious to receive an answer, because the social security contribution for payment in the company pension scheme, which was “forgotten” in the documentation, alone allows conclusions to be drawn about the aforementioned basic pension issue. Questions are also likely to arise with regard to Riester. Here, for example, the lack of documentation of the limited inheritability, the possible future offsetting against the basic income support, but also the lack of reference to full support only with full payment of contributions could represent corresponding sticking points
by Dr. Johannes Fiala
by courtesy of
www.versicherungsbote.de (published on 17.05.2016)
Our office in Munich
You will find our office at Fasolt-Strasse 7 in Munich, very close to Schloss Nymphenburg. Our team consists of highly motivated attorneys who are available for all the needs of our clients. In special cases, our law firm cooperates with selected experts to represent your interests in the best possible way.
About the author
Dr. Johannes Fiala has been working for more than 25 years as a lawyer and attorney with his own law firm in Munich. He is intensively involved in real estate, financial law, tax and insurance law. The numerous stages of his professional career enable him to provide his clients with comprehensive advice and to act as a lawyer in the event of disputes.
»More about Dr. Johannes Fiala
On these pages, Dr. Fiala provides information on current legal and economic topics as well as on current political changes that are of social and/or corporate relevance.
Arrange your personal appointment with us.
You are already receiving legal advice and would like a second opinion? In this case please contact Dr. Fiala directly via the following link.
The first telephone call about your request is free of charge.