Fraudulent breach of duty in the event of an accident: Decision of the Berlin Regional Court

Transparenz: Redaktionell erstellt und geprüft.
Veröffentlicht am

According to a report from www.sueddeutsche.de, the Berlin Regional Court has decided that those involved in an accident who leave the scene of the accident without permission are not automatically behaving fraudulently. This means that insurance coverage does not automatically cease, but must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and the burden of proof lies with the insurer. The verdict is based on a specific case in which a driver left the scene of the accident without permission after an accident, but was reported to the police by witnesses and was later found in a nearby café. The insurance company sued based on fraudulent behavior, but the court ruled that an accident often overwhelms those affected and does not necessarily...

Gemäß einem Bericht von www.sueddeutsche.de hat das Landgericht Berlin entschieden, dass sich Unfallbeteiligte, die unerlaubt vom Unfallort entfernen, nicht automatisch arglistig verhalten. Dies bedeutet, dass der Versicherungsschutz nicht automatisch entfällt, sondern von Fall zu Fall bewertet werden muss und die Beweislast beim Versicherer liegt. Das Urteil basiert auf einem konkreten Fall, in dem ein Autofahrer sich nach einem Unfall unerlaubt vom Unfallort entfernte, aber von Zeugen der Polizei gemeldet wurde und später in einem Café in der Nähe gefunden wurde. Die Versicherung klagte aufgrund arglistigen Verhaltens, aber das Gericht entschied, dass ein Unfall die Betroffenen oft überfordert und nicht zwangsläufig …
According to a report from www.sueddeutsche.de, the Berlin Regional Court has decided that those involved in an accident who leave the scene of the accident without permission are not automatically behaving fraudulently. This means that insurance coverage does not automatically cease, but must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and the burden of proof lies with the insurer. The verdict is based on a specific case in which a driver left the scene of the accident without permission after an accident, but was reported to the police by witnesses and was later found in a nearby café. The insurance company sued based on fraudulent behavior, but the court ruled that an accident often overwhelms those affected and does not necessarily...

Fraudulent breach of duty in the event of an accident: Decision of the Berlin Regional Court

According to a report by www.sueddeutsche.de The Berlin Regional Court has decided that those involved in an accident who leave the scene of an accident without permission are not automatically behaving fraudulently. This means that insurance coverage does not automatically cease, but must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and the burden of proof lies with the insurer. The verdict is based on a specific case in which a driver left the scene of the accident without permission after an accident, but was reported to the police by witnesses and was later found in a nearby café. The insurance company sued based on fraudulent behavior, but the court ruled that an accident often overwhelms those affected and that there is not necessarily fraudulent behavior.

This ruling has far-reaching implications for the auto insurance industry and consumers. In similar cases, insurance companies cannot automatically withdraw insurance coverage, but must provide evidence of fraudulent behavior. This means that in the future, insurance companies will have to check more closely whether there is actually fraudulent behavior before taking measures that result in the insurance cover being no longer provided. For consumers, this means a certain level of protection in the event of an accident in which they may have left the scene of the accident without permission, but not necessarily acted fraudulently.

Overall, this ruling leads to greater transparency and fairness in the motor vehicle insurance industry and offers consumers a certain level of protection against arbitrary actions by insurance companies.

The district court ruling therefore has the potential to influence case law in similar cases and create a new dynamic with regard to insurance coverage after accidents. This will lead to better scrutiny and legal clarity in the industry.

Read the source article at www.sueddeutsche.de

To the article