The Senate has pointed out further misgivings about the effectiveness of the provisions on the cancellation trigger. Is the evidence provided the policyholder as required by 309 No. 5 b BGB explicitly, that no or only a substantially lower damage. Sentencing was – possibly – by an out-of-court settlement – to assume that the Supreme Court will consider a large part of the insurance clauses to the buy-back value funded insurance invalid is prevented due to this advance made mention of the BGH. In particular the low buy-back value was – watched independent critical of comprehensibility -. Thus, it is expected to be in the majority of the insurance contract terms of the buy-back value in Future no longer arrive if the clauses are sufficiently understandable. The courts must now test on the basis of the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court, if the Versicherungsbedinungen are invalid.
A new decision of the BGH rules on this question was prevented by the withdrawal of the revision by the plaintiff. Insurance has probably ransomed themselves by a decision. A generally disadvantageous for her judgment with considerable follow-up costs associated for the insurance. She could prevent a judgment by the presumed conclusion of a settlement with the plaintiff. The complaint is then withdrawn and the issue to be decided. The insurance can continue to rely on the effectiveness of contractual clauses. Can be advised to only policyholders with old treaties, which continue to be fobbed off with a buy-back value equal to zero, to take this legal action and if necessary to enforce a decision of the Federal Court of Justice. Author of the article: lawyer Tarik Sharief Ansbacherstrasse 13 10787 Berlin phone: +49/(0)30-69 53 33 61 E-Mail: press contact: Karlheinz Schuler Lebanon Road 85 D 70186 Stuttgart phone: 0711-50 622 624 E-mail: