Relevance jurisprudence
The relevance jurisprudence describes principles developed by the highest court in private insurance law to mitigate the "all or nothing principle" in the event of breaches of duty by policyholders under the old Insurance Contract Act .
According to the old insurance contract law, the insurance company, especially in the comprehensive insurance area, can often rely on exemption from performance if its policyholder has violated his obligations, for example through deliberately incorrect or incomplete information in a damage report. Unlike in cases of damage without a breach of duty, in which he is covered by the insurance company "Everything", i. H. receives the promised insurance benefit, the policyholder would get "nothing" without the relevant case law in the case of certain breaches of obligations if the insurance claims the exemption from benefits. Since the policyholder paid his insurance premiums in both cases, this was and is often felt to be unfair or too harsh.
According to the relevance case law of the Federal Court of Justice , the policyholder can object to the insurer's freedom to provide benefits if his breach of obligations has no consequences for the insurance, i.e. has remained "irrelevant"
- his breach of duty was generally unsuitable to seriously jeopardize the interests of the insurance company, or
- his violation is based on a less serious fault, or
- he was not or not properly informed about the consequences of a corresponding breach of duty.
If the policyholder penetrates with one of these reasons, he will receive "everything" again in the event of a breach of duty without consequences. H. the contractually agreed insurance benefit.
The new Insurance Contract Act gives up the “all or nothing principle”. According to the new insurance contract law, depending on the severity of the breach of obligation or fault, insurance cover can also be restricted without being completely eliminated.
Individual evidence
- ↑ BGH, judgment of January 16, 1970, Az .: R 645/68 = BGHZ 53, 160 , 164; BGH, judgment of June 24, 1981, Az .: IVa ZR 133/80 = VersR 1982, 182 ff. With further references
