Insurance policy (Photo: Unsplash/Vlad Deep).
editor
Last update
Give a coffee
Information should be free for everyone, but good journalism costs a lot of money.
If you enjoyed this article, you can check Aviation.Direct voluntary invite for a cup of coffee.
In doing so, you support the journalistic work of our independent specialist portal for aviation, travel and tourism with a focus on the DA-CH region voluntarily without a paywall requirement.
If you did not like the article, we look forward to your constructive criticism and/or your comments either directly to the editor or to the team at with this link or alternatively via the comments.
Your
Aviation.Direct team

Munich Higher Regional Court declares Union Reiseversicherung's pandemic exclusion clause invalid

Advertising

The Higher Regional Court of Munich has a so-called Pandemic exclusion clause is Union Travel Insurance invalidated. This decision is the result of legal proceedings that Consumer advice center NRW against the insurer. Union Reiseversicherung had previously refused reimbursements for coronavirus-related travel cancellations or medical expenses, citing this clause. The settlement now reached obliges the insurer to re-examine all rejected claims relating to losses from 2022 or later.

Those affected do not need to take any action themselves in this matter. Union Reiseversicherung has promised to investigate all relevant cases on its own initiative and contact the insured persons. However, if the insurer does not respond within the next four weeks, the North Rhine-Westphalia Consumer Advice Center advises that those who have not yet filed a claim for insurance benefits should also check whether they are still entitled to a claim. For cases from 2021, the individual statute of limitations must be observed.

The Higher Regional Court's decision affects all travel insurance policies offered by Union Reiseversicherung, whose terms and conditions included the pandemic exclusion. This includes, among others, travel cancellation, trip interruption, and international health insurance policies. The court justified its decision by stating that wording such as "no insurance coverage exists for damage caused by pandemics" or similar clauses lacked sufficient transparency. This lack of clarity prevents consumers from clearly identifying their entitlement to benefits, especially in times of crisis.

The ruling, although a decision in a specific case, is likely to have a significant impact on other insurers in Germany. It demonstrates that pandemic-related exclusions do not have to be applied across the board and that insurance terms and conditions must be formulated in a way that is understandable to consumers. This is also relevant for travel agencies, tour operators, and distribution partners, as the new legal precedent could play a role in consultations and customer complaints. The decision thus significantly strengthens consumer rights in the area of ​​travel insurance.

Advertising

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Advertising