Peter De Kievith – stock.adobe.com
display
Insurance companies do not always have to pay for company closures due to the lockdown. According to the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Karlsruhe, it depends on the specific wording in the insurance conditions and whether these are clear and understandable (judgment of 30.06.2021, Az. 12 U 4/21 and 12 U 11/21).
In the case of a Heidelberg hotel with an attached restaurant, the OLG has affirmed that the insurance company is obliged to provide benefits. In the general terms and conditions of the insurance company, reference is made to the Infection Protection Act (IfSG) several times. The insurance company is therefore obliged to pay compensation in the event of business closures if the closure is due to diseases and pathogens that are listed in Sections 6, 7 of the IfSG.
In the opinion of the court, however, this regulation is not sufficiently clear and understandable. The coronavirus is not included in this list and, according to the terms and conditions, the insurance does not have to pay. However, the chosen formulation does not make this clear to the policyholder. The reference to the final catalog is not made clear enough to him. Instead, he gets the impression that a company closure is insured for every occurrence of a reportable disease or pathogen. Since the obligation to report also existed at the beginning of the insured event in March 2020, the closure of the company was also included in the scope of insurance.
The OLG also makes it clear that the same applies to company closings by ordinance of the state government and not only to individual administrative orders for infections that have occurred in the company.
No reference to IfSG, no compensation
On the other hand, a Hessian company had no success before the OLG. The IfSG would never mention the insurance conditions in this case. Instead, it is expressly regulated that notifiable diseases and pathogens are only the following. The corona virus is not listed there. In accordance with this clearly formulated clause, the transparency requirement is maintained and no other unreasonable disadvantage for the policyholder is discernible.
In the second case the OLG did not allow the appeal to the BGH, in the first case it did because of its fundamental importance.
After all, cases like these two in Karlsruhe are currently a frequent concern of the German courts. The OLG Hamm has already denied that an insurance company is obliged to pay benefits because the coronavirus was not expressly mentioned in the terms and conditions. The landlord of the well-known Augustiner-Keller in Munich had better luck in front of the LG there and was awarded a million dollar compensation. Here, too, the reference in the terms and conditions to the IfSG was sufficient. The LG Cologne has also made several decisions on the question of insurance companies’ obligation to pay compensation for company closures due to the corona virus.
pdi / LTO editorial staff
–
Suggested citation
Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe on the compensation payment due to lockdowns: Is there an insured event also in the case of Corona closure? . In: Legal Tribune Online, June 30, 2021, https://www.lto.de/persistent/a_id/45346/ (accessed on: 30.06.2021)
Information on the suggested citation
– .
