The life insurers have blown up before the Federal Constitutional Court. Now they want to process contradictions against old contracts quickly. Many life insurance clients can hope for more money. A number of companies have announced that they will respond to current decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court. "We will now process the present objection statements as quickly as possible," said, for example, a spokesman for AachenMünchener, which has failed with a complaint to the Constitutional Court.
Background: Who between 1995 and 2007 has completed a capital life or private pension policy can contradict the contract under certain conditions today - even if he has already terminated. While some additional payments of more than 10 000 euros beckend. Specifically, it is about the question of whether consumers were mistakenly or not at the conclusion of the contract informed about their right to object. A similar constellation around mortgage loans has led to a process wave there, because many debtors have pulled the so-called cancellation joker. An afterthought can bring substantial additional payments. This was decided by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in 2014 and specified in 2015.
The providers AachenMünchener, Ergo, Generali and Provincial Rhineland had nonetheless denied customers' claims flat-rate and referred to constitutional complaints that were filed against BGH judgments. In the meantime, the Constitutional Court has in almost all cases refused to deal with the complaints. According to a court spokesman, a complaint is pending only in a special case. Spokesman of the four insurers, who had shown official restraint, now promised in unison, prompt statements of opposition in the sense of the BGH judgments quickly. Other providers had emphasized in advance that the clarification of their customers at the conclusion of the contract was mostly complete to completely correct. The market leader Allianz argued that he was hardly affected by the problem - a statement that is doubted by consumer advocates. The Alliance had also filed a constitutional complaint, but later withdrawn on its own initiative.
The industry arbitrator Günter Hirsch said, purely legal, insurers could continue to reject customer demands, because - as is usual in judgments - even those of the BGH are only decisions on individual cases. If a customer then turns to him for a rejection, it also depends on the individual case.
If the BGH judgments "clearly applicable to the present circumstances," Hirsch continued, he would intervene completely in the interests of the customer. Otherwise, among other things, a mediation proposal would be conceivable, "which is based on my assessment of the process risk".
Source: Euro am Sonntag (30.07.2016)