{"id":18482,"date":"2007-08-13T23:08:12","date_gmt":"2007-08-13T21:08:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fiala.de\/bgh-as-a-rule-no-compensation-2\/"},"modified":"2007-08-13T23:08:12","modified_gmt":"2007-08-13T21:08:12","slug":"bgh-as-a-rule-no-compensation-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/bgh-as-a-rule-no-compensation-2\/","title":{"rendered":"BGH: As a rule no compensation"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>for insurance companies in the event of concealment of circumstances relevant to the risk in the insurance application<br \/>\n&#8220;In the past, even the future was better.&#8221; (Karl Valentin)<br \/>\nAn insurance company is sued for payment of damages in the amount of 268,039.38 Euro (household insurance) and 51,150.90 Euro (building insurance). The policyholder had concealed pre-contractual water damage from the insurer. The policyholder&#8217;s claim was dismissed at first and second instance, as the insurer was entitled to compensation &#8220;due to a breach of the obligation to provide information when applying for insurance&#8221;. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) overturned this decision in its ruling of 7 February 2007 (Case No. <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/dienste\/vernetzung\/rechtsprechung?Text=IV%20ZR%205\/06\" title=\"BGH, 07.02.2007 - IV ZR 5\/06: Anspr&uuml;che des Versicherers bei T&auml;uschung des Versicherungsnehmers...\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"external\">IV ZR 5\/06<\/a>). No compensation from BGB besides the regulations in <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/gesetze\/VVG\/16.html\" title=\"&sect; 16 VVG: Insolvenz des Versicherers\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"external\">\u00a7\u00a7 16 ff. VVG<\/a>: The BGH based its decision on the fact that an insurance company is regularly not entitled to &#8220;damages for breach of pre-contractual duty of disclosure&#8221; (CIC) if the policyholder breaches his pre-contractual duty of disclosure. Sanction options of the insurer: The insurer regularly has only the conclusive options of the VVG open to it if a duty of disclosure has been breached, in particular &#8211; premium increase &#8211; cancellation of the insurance contract &#8211; withdrawal from the contract This is settled case law of the BGH. Exception: deception about non-hazardous circumstances &#8211; other protected interests. Thus, only in cases outside the scope of application of <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/gesetze\/VVG\/16.html\" title=\"&sect; 16 VVG: Insolvenz des Versicherers\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"external\">\u00a7\u00a7 16 ff. VVG<\/a>, for example in the case of intentional immoral damage, or in the case of tortious acts. This is particularly the case if the policyholder would have taken out the insurance &#8220;with the preconceived intention&#8221; of using the insurance for fraudulent claims and\/or intentionally causing future insurance claims. However, it will rarely be possible to prove this in practice.<br \/>\nStatus: 20.04.2007<br \/>\n  (Expert Report, 20.04.2007)<br \/>\n  Courtesy of <link http:=\"\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.experten.de\" class=\"external\" rel=\"nofollow\">www.experten.de<\/a> <\/LINK>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>for insurance companies in the event of concealment of circumstances relevant to the risk in the insurance application &#8220;In the past, even the future was better.&#8221; (Karl Valentin) An insurance company is sued for payment of damages in the amount of 268,039.38 Euro (household insurance) and 51,150.90 Euro (building insurance). The policyholder had concealed pre-contractual [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","rank_math_focus_keyword":"","rank_math_description":"","rank_math_title":""},"categories":[492],"tags":[649,552,653,529,493],"class_list":["post-18482","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-veroeffentlichungen-en","tag-building-insurance","tag-bundesgerichtshof-en","tag-praemienerhoehung-en","tag-schaeden-en","tag-versicherung-en"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18482","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18482"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18482\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18482"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18482"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18482"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}