Fidelity insurance
Fidelity insurance (VSV) protects companies from financial loss resulting from unauthorized acts committed by employees or other trusted persons of the company.
scope
For insurance coverage includes losses from fraud , embezzlement , theft , embezzlement , vandalism , sabotage or other intentional unlawful acts according to § 823 BGB for damages committed. As a rule, compensation is provided for damage caused to the company itself and damage caused to third parties. Damage from successful CEO fraud attacks can also be covered by the policy . Fidelity insurance is, in the broader sense, credit insurance.
Problem
According to police crime statistics , there were more than a million cases of damage in Germany in 2006, with a total amount of 4 billion euros. The Euler Hermes Credit Insurance estimates that of which about 40% were caused by employees of the companies concerned. According to a survey by Ernst & Young , the rate even amounts to around 50%.
High number of unreported cases
Many companies fear that such embezzlement will damage their image. For this reason, the majority of the cases are not made public. The German insurance companies and management consulting institutes estimate the number of unreported cases at around 50%.
Reasons for embezzlement
According to the insurers' assessments, increasing material bottlenecks and increasing loss of value lead to decreasing loyalty to the company. At the same time carry out mergers, increasing anonymization or lean management ( lean management ) increased to vulnerabilities that make the tort possible.
Criticism of the fidelity insurance
In the face of increasing and growing damage from employee crime and CEO fraud, fidelity insurers sometimes fail to provide cover for damaged companies or only pay for part of the damage. The insurers argue that the damaged company (or its representatives) has breached contractual obligations to prevent damage.
Insurers also regularly submit that the company caused the claim through gross negligence through deficiencies in the compliance system, so that the insurer can reduce its payment (pursuant to Section 81 (2) of the Insurance Contract Act). According to this line of argument, even the occurrence of damage suggests that compliance measures were not sufficient - a circular argument, because if there are always sufficient monitoring and control measures in the company, insurance against the consequences of compliance violations would be superfluous.
See also
Individual evidence
- ↑ When millions are transferred to the wrong boss . Welt Online , February 20, 2015; accessed on January 9, 2018