From the series of newsletters of the DHBW (Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University) Heidenheim on the topic “Mediation Law in Practice”:<\/p>\n
At this point, lawyer Dr. Johannes Fiala, https:\/\/fiala4instalive.instawp.xyz<\/a>, lecturer for insurance law at the DHBW Heidenheim, will answer your questions,<\/p>\n Your questions. Questions can be asked by emailing ott@dhbw-heidenheim.de<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n In the case of pecuniary loss liability (VSH), a policyholder (VN) is obliged to report an impending loss already.<\/p>\n The insurer (VR) must then take action and examine the case. Within a few weeks (acceleration requirement), the BoD shall, after<\/p>\n to decide, at its own discretion, whether to reject unfounded claims or to provide compensation for justified claims.<\/p>\n Ultimately, the VR is obliged to indemnify the policyholder from claims in one way or another.<\/p>\n For a claim to be made, it is sufficient that the injured party believes that he has claims which he is pursuing or will pursue.<\/p>\n Sufficient is, for example, the extrajudicial demand for payment, the demand for acknowledgement, or a notice of dispute.<\/p>\n Any claim ground within the scope of protection of the VSH is sufficient. The BoD then examines in particular whether and in what form<\/p>\n its cover is given in terms of time and place, or the cover is excluded, for example, due to intent on the part of the policyholder.<\/p>\n For this purpose, the policyholder is first of all obliged to provide him with all necessary information on the facts of the case.<\/p>\n truthfully, if he does not want to jeopardise his insurance cover for this reason alone.<\/p>\n The obligation to provide legal protection (defence cover) or the alternative principal obligation to indemnify the insured against liability claims<\/p>\n (regulatory cover) are primary obligations of equal rank for the VR. Whether the injured party’s claim had merit,<\/p>\n is irrelevant to the fact that one of these coverages is owed. The BoD may, even if it considers the liability claim to be well founded<\/p>\n holds, opt for defensive coverage tactically first instead of regulation. There are also the cases of defensive coverage,<\/p>\n where liability is beyond question, but the amount of damages is wholly or partly in issue.<\/p>\n If the VR does not react, or does not react dutifully, the policyholder will have to call in a lawyer himself.<\/p>\n On the one hand, this is a matter of defending against liability, but it is also a matter of providing one’s own VSH insurer with an<\/p>\n declaratory action before the claims of the policyholder against the VR become time-barred after up to more than three years.<\/p>\n It has already happened that the BoD did not react at all to a notification of damage and the initial complaints.<\/p>\n Some financial services providers had insured loan brokerage and life insurance brokerage under the VSH conditions<\/p>\n – nevertheless, the VSH has refused to provide cover for credit-financed immediate annuity schemes. In many cases, this threatens the insolvency of the insured party.<\/p>\n Problematic are either non-existent or incomplete VSH covers, in areas without statutory VSH compulsory cover.<\/p>\n This applies, for example, to so-called liability umbrellas, pools, supplementary cover via framework agreements and agents.<\/p>\n In particular, those affected later discover that there was no VSH cover at all, or that this did not match the activity or the<\/p>\n products was suitably designed. Checking this off in good times would have been safer then.<\/p>\n \n by Dr. Johannes Fiala<\/p>\n \n by courtesy of<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.dhbw-heidenheim.de<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"