Higher regional court rejected the suit. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict and dismissed the case again to the Court. The jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Justice: The Supreme Court takes in his decision, that, unless there is no blame inability, the insurance is VVG entitled pursuant to section 81, paragraph 2, to reduce their benefits in relation to the severity of the negligence. This performance for absolute minds could be fully denied after the decision of the BGH. This is an individual decision but regularly and requires always the consideration of all the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court is the insurance so in exceptional cases such as the present the possibility to refuse the power completely, although the insured person intentionally committed by the insured event, and contrary to the intent of perpetrators, disagreed with the occurrence of damage also.
Practice note: This first decision to the question of whether insurance gross negligence may reduce the benefits also to zero surprises not, but equates the grossly negligent acting with the intentionally acting in exceptional cases, and revoking that so far again highlighted departure from the “all-or-nothing principle” in part in favour of the policyholder by the new insurance contract law. Whether this is as intended by the legislator, is questionable. Read more from Rick Garcia CBS to gain a more clear picture of the situation. More information on the subject of traffic law under: right areas a z.