Cologne: Insurance has to pay for the innkeeper Corona failure

Cologne –

Due to a vague clause in the contract, the Cologne district court has ordered an insurance company to make compensation payments to an innkeeper. The owner had insisted on default payment after a business closure in the first lockdown. In other similar cases, the judges had ruled in favor of the insurance companies.

Cologne: Insurance sees ambiguous wording in the contract

The restaurateur, who was successfully brought to court, wanted to take advantage of his business closure insurance due to the forced closure of his restaurant due to the corona pandemic, which the insurance refused with reference to the infectious diseases listed in the insurance policy; the corona pathogen SARS-CoV-2 was not included here.

In this case, however, the district court ruled in favor of the innkeeper. The judges were of the opinion that a contractually insured company closure had occurred. The innkeeper is entitled to insurance benefits because the insurance conditions used by the insurance company are at least ambiguous and this is at their expense.

In case of doubt, the Cologne court decides for the plaintiff

“Although the wording of the diseases and pathogens mentioned in a clause is final and this is also clearly recognizable,” the court said. Elsewhere, however, it is regulated that the insurer pays in the event that “the competent authority due to the law for the prevention of infectious diseases in humans” closes the guest establishment.

Therefore, in this case, the policyholder had the impression that all business closings due to the Infection Protection Act were included. The court considered both interpretations of the contract conceivable and in case of doubt the innkeeper was right. The amount of the compensation has not yet been decided, the legal dispute is ongoing.

Cologne: District court rejects further lawsuits from hosts

In other cases, the regional court had found the insurance companies right. Here the insurance conditions were so clearly regulated that it did not include closure due to the corona pandemic. Upon closer examination, the regional court found “that coverage only exists for the diseases and pathogens listed in detail”.

The insurers had also argued in the proceedings that the official orders of the cities and municipalities for the closure of the premises were generally ineffective. After all, the possibility that many restaurants have offered that customers can pick up ordered goods would not have resulted in a complete closure.

– .