Additional claims in the multi-digit millions possible<\/p>\n
Guarantees with British
\nusually not until the expiration<\/p>\n
British with-profits policies see
\nlower guarantees than those provided by
\noffered by German life insurers
\nEndowment life insurance.
\nThese guarantees are also based on the
\nscheduled expiry date and shall apply
\ntherefore usually not in the case of premature
\nTermination or partial termination (partial withdrawals).
\nBritish life insurers invest
\nmainly in shares, in the
\nPast with a share of
\n50 to 70% of their net contribution income
\non average about five times
\nas much as German endowment life insurers.
\nProducts from the island were at
\nthe total long-term rate of return
\n2 to 3 percentage points above the results
\nof the German competition.
\nThe focus is on achieving a
\nhigh return on investment, for which you also get a
\naccepts a higher level of risk.<\/p>\n
Guarantees, maturity bonus
\nand Smoothing not with
\nCancellation<\/p>\n
In order to avoid this higher risk for the customer
\nto cushion the blow, the British
\nInsurer a smoothing procedure
\n(Smoothing) on. Within the framework of the so-called
\n“Smoothing” should thereby
\nReserves formed for worse years
\nwill be. Thus, the companies
\nduring a bull market
\nnot completely to the customers
\nfurther, to provide a buffer for times of crisis
\nbuild up. The security capital
\nconsists to a large extent of the
\nalready generated funds, which
\nnot yet finally guaranteed to the
\ncustomers were passed on.
\nThis also includes in particular
\nMaturity bonuses (final bonus), which are paid in the
\nvalue of the shares not included, and
\nare not guaranteed. With
\nthis part of the contract value is “liable”.
\nthe customer until the expiry of the contract
\nwith for the development of the capital markets
\n– i.e. the decline of the “unsmoothed
\nPool values”. But this will
\nsoftened by the smoothing, so
\nthat a certain stability of the expected
\nresults is given.
\nIn the event of premature sale of the shares
\nhowever, these guarantees shall, in principle, apply
\nnot at all or only to a very limited extent.
\nThen they go to the expiration date
\nguarantees given completely
\nlost, because at the time of sale the
\nPolicy value due to market price adjustments
\nto the actual value of the
\nunderlying securities were adjusted.
\nThe calculation of which is recommended
\nmany customers as incomprehensible,
\narbitrary or unfair.<\/p>\n
Application of British
\nMethods violates
\nGerman law<\/p>\n
A common misconception among intermediaries
\nand insurance customers is the opinion,
\nBritish insurers could
\nafter the mostly unknown British
\nRight “settle what and how
\nthey wanted.” It is true, however, that
\nGerman insurance contract law
\n(VVG) is to be applied.
\nBut the one practiced by the British
\nProcedure does not correspond to German
\nright, which makes one very different
\nthe so-called “current value” to be calculated
\n(if applicable. less reasonable
\nand agreed actuarial assumptions
\nlapse deductions) as minimum surrender value
\nprescribes. In the case of the in
\nGermany expelled British
\nso-called “with profi ts” policies is
\nGerman law is generally agreed.
\nThese policies are therefore subject to
\nGerman insurance contract law.
\nThis saw now since 1995 to 2007
\nin \u00a7 176 VVG1 stipulates that the insurer shall
\non termination of an endowment policy
\nrefund the surrender value
\nwho, “according to the recognized
\nRules of actuarial mathematics
\n… to be calculated as the current value of the insurance”
\nis.<\/p>\n
Cancellation deduction must
\nappropriate and furthermore
\nbe agreed<\/p>\n
With regard to the so-called cancellation deduction Legislators led In the course of deregulation in 1994 Fair value means discounted From an actuarial point of view, which is decisive here British methods give way He is not simply the British Customers are entitled to at least According to German law, the customer Brits sat on clues Engel\u00e4nder7 (Actuary) also writes infringement Even if the British did not take this to heart… Customers are provided with a complete Customers who have been No effective help from the Only when the customer or ex-customer ——————— (expert report 2 2008, 70)<\/p>\n
\n\u00a7 176 (4) VVG<\/a> stipulated “The
\nInsurer is entitled to a deduction only
\nif it is agreed and appropriate
\nIs.” The point cancellation deduction
\nis not to be questioned here. He
\nhas to do with the effect of, in particular
\nby market price adjustments due to the capital market situation
\nreduced surrender values
\nBritish policies nothing
\nto do. In principle, he can also
\nonly be levied if it is objectively
\nappropriate and (transparently) agreed
\nis – otherwise results directly from
\nthe law the consequence that it is not deducted
\nis allowed to be.<\/p>\n
\n1994 the current value<\/p>\n
\nthe German legislator – also for the
\nGerman law compatible British
\nPolicies – the concept of current value
\nintroduced something completely new
\nrepresents. He’s so new that the old terms
\nstill the imagination
\nalso by lawyers and wide circles of
\ninsurance industry2. The
\nThe legislator states in the explanatory memorandum3
\non the revision of section 176
\nVVG stipulates, inter alia, that the current value of the
\ncapital market situation (more precisely: the
\nyield expectations until expiry)
\nat the time of its calculation
\n– already that is new, since the traditional
\nCalculation of the surrender value
\nfrom the actuarial reserve with
\nthe unchanged at the beginning of the contract
\napplicable actuarial interest rate. He’s
\naccording to the idea of the legislator
\nprospectively as the difference between the present values
\nof future performance and the
\nfuture premiums to be paid
\nto calculate. Thereby recognized
\nactuarial methods
\nto be applied.
\nThe calculation bases to be used
\n(expressly as
\nDiscount rate and mortality assumptions
\nnamed) are analogous
\n\u00a7 9 of the German Valuation Law (BewG). The legislator
\nassumes that the policyholder
\nin the fair value “at repurchase
\nhis insurance their real
\nvalue “4.<\/p>\n
\nfull value of the
\nContract<\/p>\n
\nbe in full view
\nJaeger5 and Engel\u00e4nder6 deal with the
\nfair value. They come
\nconcluded that the
\nrecognized actuarial methods
\nInvestigation methods
\nof the fair value as the present value difference
\nof future benefits (of the insurer)
\nand payable in the future
\nPremiums (of the policyholder)
\nare available, while only the valuation
\nthe calculation bases to be used for this purpose
\na certain
\nallows room for manoeuvre, as it does
\nfor fair value calculations in other
\nareas is typical. Starting point
\nare in any case only the contractually agreed
\nServices and the contractual
\nagreed premiums. The internal
\nCalculation bases or the
\nCalculation of the insurer play
\nis irrelevant: from the customer’s point of view, the time value
\nto determine. Decisive
\nit will be on the question of the interest rate
\narrive.
\nThe fair value can be determined from
\nthe contractual provisions
\nobjectively, e.g. by an external
\nDetermine expert – at least
\njust as objectively and reliably as
\nother fair values (e.g. B. Yield values
\nof real estate) likewise, which are
\ncourts – despite the fact that
\ndifferent experts and
\npossibly lead to deviating valuations and
\nResults come – recognized
\nwill be. For example, it is regularly
\napplied when it comes to the
\nPension rights adjustment in the context of a
\nDivorce goes: In agreement
\nwith the case law of the
\nFederal Court of Justice (BGH) ensure
\nFamily Courts to ensure that appropriate
\nExpert opinion
\nabout the value can be obtained.<\/p>\n
\nfrom time value calculation<\/p>\n
\nper market price adjustment ultimately from
\nthe value of the underlying investments
\ncalculated “surrender value” of the
\nContract. Because the services and
\nalso the duration of the payment of contributions
\nfrom the occurrence of certain “accidental”
\nEvents depend – death or
\nexperience of the process – and on the
\nDate of repurchase to be discounted
\nactuarial assumptions are applied.
\nMethods and
\nBasis of calculation – discount rate
\nand mortality probabilities
\n– into play.
\nOn expiry, the UK policies provide
\ncertain guarantees, including
\nfuture current surpluses
\nand the expected “smoothed”
\nMaturity Bonus. Not only the achieved
\nMinimum guarantees, but
\nall that is realistically possible in the
\nprocess is to be expected, must also be
\nenter the legal time value
\n– as with the German policies, for example.
\nalso a non-guaranteed terminal bonus
\nis included in the fair value.
\nExample: In a non-contributory UK
\nPolicy are one year before expiry already
\nEUR 148,000 guaranteed at the expiry date.
\nIn addition, there is EUR 2,000 in ongoing
\nsurpluses and a through smoothing
\nsmoothed maturity bonus of currently
\nexpected EUR 50,000, which, however, is still
\nis not guaranteed. Together these are
\nEUR 200 000. Because of a stock market downturn.
\nhowever – also by means of market price adjustments
\n– on giving notice
\nYear before expiry only EUR 140,000 paid out
\n– Guarantees on expiry apply Yes
\nthen don’t. However, even if the current value
\nthe expected EUR 200 000
\nowing to the remaining uncertainties
\ndiscounted at 7 % to the termination date
\nwould have to be at least almost
\nEUR 187,000 will be disbursed.<\/p>\n
\nthe current value of their
\ninsurance at<\/p>\n
\nso you’re entitled to the actual
\nfair “time value” of his contract, which is
\nas a result of the guarantees at expiry
\neven one year before expiry clearly
\nis above what the British
\nInsurers due to the current
\nweak capital market situation calculated
\nhas. The customer therefore has – if still
\nnot statute-barred – a corresponding
\nClaim for additional payment. Different
\nCalculations of the British correspond
\nso simply not German
\nRight – the customer is entitled to
\nthe full market value (fair value) of its
\nPolicy. Depending on the market
\nabove all the discount rate, with
\nwhich the fair value from the in particular
\nat the end of the expected services
\ncalculated, and which is dependent on the capital market situation
\ndepends.<\/p>\n
\nof the actuaries<\/p>\n
\nand authorized signatory at KPMG) at the time value:
\n“The introduction of this term
\nis based on an initiative of actuaries,
\nwhich hereby foreign, in particular
\nAnglo-Saxon methods
\non the determination of termination indemnities
\n…to prevent it. While
\nthe fair value is based on market values
\nbased, in the United Kingdom, the
\nTermination benefits on the basis of
\nthe insurer’s investments
\ndetermined. This can therefore be at the risk
\nof the customer, because he
\nonly has to be a predefined
\nMeet performance. Through the German
\nObligation to pay at least the
\nmarket-dependent fair value as termination payment
\nto perform, the
\nInsurer to a pension product
\nreasonable caution
\nand reliable capital investment
\nforced.”<\/p>\n
\nCommandment: Customer stands
\nMinimum remuneration at<\/p>\n
\nshould have – on the legal
\nMinimum surrender value – i.e.
\nfull time value – do they come after
\nthe mid-1994 to 2007
\nGerman insurance contract law
\nnot over. The fair value determines
\nbased solely on the claims
\nand obligations of the policyholder
\nover the
\nInsurers, no matter what internal
\nin the insurer. Thereby the
\ntotal effect also of the future
\nprofit participation incl. Maturity Bonus,
\nthe guarantees on expiry
\nand any other promised
\nPerformance to be taken into account8.
\nEngel\u00e4nder (op. cit.) points out,
\nthat to determine the fair value
\na qualified actuary must always be involved.
\nis. Because the time value is not
\nvalue, which the insurer has determined from its own
\nlaw, but a statutory
\njustified, external value.<\/p>\n
\nand traceable
\nSettlement at<\/p>\n
\nInsurers charged
\nSurrender values, also in the case of partial terminations, if applicable
\nor partial disbursements
\nor withdrawals are treated unfairly
\nshould therefore contact the insurer
\nfirst of all to a legally compliant
\nRecalculation of the benefit as the present value
\n…to ask… In case of doubt or if
\nthe recalculation is denied,
\nthe current value can of course
\nalso by an actuarial
\nExpert determined
\nwill be.
\nJustifications from UK insurers,
\nthat the value of the investments
\nand therefore market price adjustments had to be made.
\nto be carried out,
\nare completely beside German law
\nand are therefore irrelevant if
\nthis results in lower benefits than the
\nlegal fair value.<\/p>\n
\nState or interest groups
\non a case-by-case basis<\/p>\n
\nof the insurer knows that the settlement
\nis still incorrect, and
\nhow much money is missing, a lawyer can
\nreally help. The hope, “the
\nState” or “the insurance regulator”
\nwould solve such problems, proves
\nproved to be deceptive and practically risky,
\nbecause the demands of the customers
\ncould become time-barred in a timely manner. Accordingly
\nevery affected person must
\n…to try to make “his case” himself,
\nbecause associations and communities of interest
\noffer no protection against
\nthe loss of one’s own claims.<\/p>\n
\n1 In individual cases also since 29.07.1994. As of 2008, this regulation was changed | 2 Engel\u00e4nder, VersR 2005, 103
\n3 Legal Explanatory Memorandum to the Third Implementing Act\/EEC to the ISA, BT-Dr. 12\/6959, S. 103<\/a>
\n4 Legal Explanatory Memorandum to the Third Implementing Act\/EEC to the ISA, BT-Dr. 12\/6959, S. 103<\/a>
\n5 Jaeger, VersR 2002, 133 | 6 Engel\u00e4nder, NVersZ 2002, 436
\n7 Engel\u00e4nder, NVersZ 2002, 436
\n8 Engel\u00e4nder, NVersZ 2002, 436<\/p>\n