Hanse Merkur Judgment
Court conceded equal to several times the resignation of PKV straight I wrote about the tariffs “CVD start fit” Hanse Merkur and their gaps and specificities in terms of. In my blog post “Hanse Merkur start fit (CVD) effective protection as claimed?” read, among other things, thing to note is exactly at the rates. The Landgericht Dortmund had under case No. 2 O to deal with 250/10 with an insured person in this tariff. The insurers, the Hanseatic League Mercury Insurance, because (allegedly) missing details from the contract back came and wanted to not provide medical services. They founded the resignation with a so-called pre-contractual duty of disclosure violation.
In the request for private health insurance, not all information was given by the customers claimed the insurer and wanted to “out of the contract”. The customer objected, however, and got right now by the District Court. It was information, which he has been made to the representative. The judges deem the resignation but ineffective and now condemned the insurer to pay more than 1,700 EUR. So far, this is nothing out of the ordinary.
However, the judgment is exciting. This is about fundamental questions of duty injury, better yet to the question of how the customer in the application is to teach. The Hanse Merkur attaches the request on a new sheet, so-called “final declarations”. These are provided with the note “important for applicants /-in:”. The application itself is just above the signature panel the following mentions: before you sign this application, please read the final declarations of the / of the Antragsteller(s)/-in and of the persons to be insured on the back of this application. The general confidentiality delivery Declaration contained in this final declarations have I taken note of and agree with her. I can revoke this declaration at any time. These statements contain also information about data processing; they are important part of the contract.
Tags: insurance & pension, money