BGH agrees with Debeka – but the dispute continues

Court ruling

BGH strengthens insurers in cancellation dispute

A customer was annoyed about high cancellation costs after canceling his life insurance. The insurer has now won before the Federal Court of Justice. But the case doesn’t end there.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has ruled in large parts of Debeka in the dispute over cancellation deductions in life insurance. The judges found that the so-called capital market-dependent cancellation deduction was correctly quantified. In addition, the corresponding clause is not opaque for the insured person. The BGH thereby overturned the judgment of the Koblenz Higher Regional Court (OLG), which had prohibited the insurer from using the clause.

Anyone who cancels their life or pension insurance with Debeka will receive a surrender value. In addition to the usual cancellation costs, the insurer can deduct a capital market-dependent cancellation fee. This additional fee depends on the development of the capital market and can amount to up to 15 percent of the cover capital. The costs can quickly amount to several thousand euros. The Hamburg consumer advice center criticizes that the amount of the fee depends on factors that consumers cannot check. The regulation is therefore ineffective. The Koblenz Higher Regional Court also saw it that way.

The fourth civil senate of the BGH did not follow this assessment on Wednesday. On the one hand, the clause met the requirements for quantifying the deduction set out in the Insurance Contract Act, as the Senate explained. The regulation does not require that the deduction be agreed as a specific amount at the conclusion of the contract. “Rather, the insurer can also rely on the regulation of a calculation procedure for the cancellation deduction.”

The aim of the capital market-dependent cancellation deduction was to protect the community of insured persons from financial disadvantages that could arise from premature, interest-driven terminations, according to Debeka. It only came into effect for limited periods of time and also only applies to contracts with certain guaranteed parts of the interest. “The BGH’s decision confirms our opinion that the clause to protect the insured community from short-term, speculative terminations is legally permissible,” said board member Laura Müller after the verdict.

The BGH was unable to make a final decision on the case. It has not yet been examined whether the controversial clauses may violate the requirement of appropriateness. The Koblenz Higher Regional Court must now look at whether cancellation deductions of up to 15 percent of the coverage capital are justified.