No breach of data protection if the insurance company refuses to cover damage due to surveillance cameras – Weinrauch Rechtsanwälte

What happen?

The policyholder was a tenant of an apartment. Because the residential building had often been a vandalism in the past, the owner of the residential building installed surveillance cameras on the exterior wall. The politician came home from a wine festival one evening. Once there, the policyholder, who was not really fit to drive due to too much alcohol, wanted to park his vehicle in the parking lot. He went over the edge of the parking lot and badly damaged his car. In the accident report to the comprehensive insurer, the policy holder stated that he was scared by a cat running past him and that he confused the brake pedal with the accelerator pedal and that’s what happened the damage. Provisional proof of coverage has been issued. During an on-site inspection by an insurance worker, he noticed the surveillance camera and was provided with the video footage, thereby denying coverage for the accident damage. Subsequently, a settlement was reached between the policyholder and the comprehensive insurer and the policyholder then sued the homeowner, who had installed the surveillance camera, for damages because the owner had prevented to oblige the insurer from paying back repair costs due to unauthorized data processing. .

What is the legal position?

In its decision of the OGH, May 15, 2024, 6 Ob 70/24y, the OGH first stated that, according to Section 82 of the GDPR, any person who has suffered substantial or unreasonable damage as as a result of the breach of the GDPR. the processor has the right to request compensation from the responsible person. According to Section 29 of the DSG, the general provisions of civil law apply. In this case, the insurance was already exempt from payment due to the risk exclusion according to Section 67 VersVG, in particular because the policyholder had passed the limit parking space due to alcohol and therefore caused the damage through gross negligence. In order for the insured event to be caused by gross negligence in comprehensive insurance, it is not necessary that alcohol consumption has been officially or legally established, because, compared to the alcohol clause according to Section 5 Section 1 Item 5, Paragraph 4 KHVG in conjunction with the general conditions for motor vehicle liability insurance, this is not the case What is important is that the regulation or justification for an administrative or legal decision to legally binding prohibits driving​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​a The breach of data protection claimed by the holder according to Article 82 of the GDPR does not exist, especially since it would be outside the purpose of protection of this data protection provision if the person​​​​ -complaints, such as (alleged) data breaches, to seek. damages from the person responsible for data processing for an insurance benefit denied by the insurance company.

decision

In addition, the lawyer Dr. Roland Weinrauch:

»In this decision, the OGH clarified that, until the insured event is caused by gross negligence within the meaning of Section 67 VersVG in comprehensive insurance, there is no need for the impairment that alcohol caused to be established in the birth. or in justification of a binding administrative or legal decision. In this context, the Supreme Court has also made it clear from a data protection point of view that the exclusion of risk established or implemented as a result of (perhaps not permitted) data processing and evaluation data and resulting damages claimed to the policyholder (refused insurance benefit) outside. the protection purpose of Article 82 of the GDPR.