Urteil

judgments
-To the topic of rewinding-

The decisive factor was a judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) of 19.12.2013. This was followed by another 154 judgments of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in 2015.
Through these judgments, customers who have a life or pension insurance in the period from 21.07.1994 to 31.12.2007 have the opportunity to enforce the reversal through false revocation instructions. Affected are not only ongoing but also terminated or expired contracts.


BGH - Judgment of 29.07.2015

Recovery of life insurance and annuity insurance contracts after opposition according to § 5a VVG aF

Judgment of 29 July 2015 IV ZR 384/14 and IV ZR 448/14

The IV Civil Division of the Federal Court of Justice, which is responsible for insurance contract law, had to deal for the first time with details of the cancellation of life and pension insurance contracts in which the policyholders had declared their objection to the conclusion of the contract in accordance with § 5a (1) sentence 1 VVG.

The plaintiffs had concluded unit-linked pension and life insurance contracts with the defendant insurer in 1999 and 2003, respectively, in accordance with the so-called policy model regulated in Section 5a VVG aF. Years later, they terminated the contracts and finally declared the objection pursuant to § 5a VVG aF The insurer paid off the respective repurchase value to the plaintiffs on the basis of the terminations. These now demand with their claims repayment of all contributions made by them together with interest less the surrender values, since the contracts were not effectively concluded as a result of the contradictions. Continue reading
. . .

BGH - Judgment of 11.11.2015

Federal Court of Justice in the name of the people

Judgment IV ZR 513/14 Announced on 11 November 2015 VVG aF § 5a; BGB § 812 para. 1 sentence 1 alt. 1, § 818 para. 1 alt. 1 and para. 3

1. In the case of the cancellation of a unit-linked life insurance following an objection in accordance with § 5a VVG aF, the policyholder must deduct the deduction to reduce the fact that the funds in which the savings portions of the premiums paid by him have made losses.

2. The policyholder can only demand the benefits actually drawn by the insurer and bears the burden of proof and proof. He can not base his statement of facts on an actual presumption of profit of a certain amount without reference to the earnings situation of the respective insurer. BGH, judgment of 11 November 2015 - IV ZR 513/14 - Cologne Higher Regional Court LG Cologne The IVth Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice has appointed Judges Mayen, the Judge Harsdorf-Gebhardt, the Judges. Karczewski, Lehmann and the judge Dr. med. Brockmöller recognized at the hearing of 14 October 2015 for right:

The judgment of the 20th Civil Senate of the Higher Regional Court of Cologne of 14 November 2014 was set aside at the cost and to the extent that the Court of Appeal did not deduct any fund losses from the claim of the plaintiff by rejecting the further appeal.

The plaintiff's follow-up revision is rejected. Continue reading
Share by: