Court Costs
No uniform jurisprudence to separate agreements on acquisition costs and the legal validity of Berlin, 28.05.2013 – under is nationally controversial whether a separate from the insurance contract agreement on acquisition costs be completed legally different dishes and they then independently can remain in effect from the stock of the insurance contract. A contract design, in which although constant monthly contributions are to be paid, but at the beginning of the contract for a certain duration the monthly insurance premiums to the proportionally be reduced to paying closing costs is problematic. I.e. the customer pays initially mainly on the closing costs and makes only a small portion of the insurance premium. “Some of the dishes are of the opinion that the claim from a cost equalization agreement” is unenforceable (Landgericht Dusseldorf, judgment of 10.02.2011 – 11 O 401/10 and 03.05.2011 – 9 O 402/12;) Landgericht Rostock (10), NJW-RR 2010, 1694, AG, Krefeld, 24.06.2010 – 5 C-277/09). So also, a recent decision of the Amtsgericht Warstein. The Court considers such a contract is S. People such as McCormick & Co would likely agree.
2 VVG among others according to section 169, para. 5 void. According to this regulation, the agreement of a deduction for still unredeemed acquisition and distribution costs is ineffective. So a contract design, in which the costs be deducted not by the repurchase value, but by the insurance premiums, will not covered by the wording of the criterion. Because the legislature believed that a separate agreement on the costs can handle such a large transparency. Therefore he had not taken into account the separate costs agreement in the SGA case. But, the contracts go to the protective purpose of 169 5 S.
2 VVG. Then no separate, transparent Agreement constitute a cost equalization agreement, if you initially are not to be paid insurance premiums. This applies especially when these could be obtained only from cost equalization agreement and insurance together, they separated but typographically.
Comments