Suche
Mein Konto
300,000 euros for belt grouches: OGH overturns insurance clause!
A court ruled in favor of a seriously injured passenger whose insurance company had to pay him 300,000 euros despite the “belt clause”.
300,000 euros for belt grouches: OGH overturns insurance clause!
In a remarkable ruling, the Supreme Court (OGH) has ruled that a man who was injured as a passenger in a serious traffic accident is entitled to compensation of 300,000 euros, even though he was not wearing a seatbelt while driving. The incident occurred on May 1, 2020 and resulted in permanent, serious injuries that left the man 100 percent disabled. The accident occurred on a narrow, steep, private logging road that only special vehicles could pass and is accessible from a public road. The victim had taken out private accident insurance before the accident.
However, the insurance company refused to pay because a “belt clause” in the contract requires you to wear a seat belt even on non-public roads. Initially, the lawsuit by the man, who received support from his adult representative and demanded 300,000 euros, was dismissed by both the Commercial Court and the Vienna Higher Regional Court. The judges argued that the man could not prove that his injuries would have been less serious even if he had been wearing a seat belt.
Turnaround in the process
The Supreme Court's decision sheds light on the legal framework regarding the wearing of seat belts. Driving without a seat belt can not only endanger life, but also financial disadvantages for the driver or passenger. In accidents caused by other road users, a person not wearing a seatbelt could claim lower compensation if contributory negligence is proven. This topic is of increasing relevance as more and more discussions are taking place about the obligation to wear seat belts.
In conclusion, this case is a striking example of how courts in Austria make decisions that could have far-reaching effects on insurance practices and the rights of accident victims. With its decision, the Supreme Court sent a strong signal that clauses in insurance contracts that contradict legal provisions are not legally valid.
Further details on this case can be found in the articles by Today.at and The press to read.