After the start of the corona pandemic, many airlines delayed reimbursement of tickets that could not be used. Anyone who has legal protection insurance with general contract legal protection thought they were on the safe side. But some insurance companies got creative and wanted to shirk cover with flimsy excuses. The Vienna Commercial Court has now put a stop to this.

The Association for Consumer Information sued one of Austria's largest providers, Uniqa-Versicherung, on behalf of the Ministry of Social Affairs. The reason for this was that, according to VKI, there were more and more complaints in spring 2020 that the company should have refused cover in the area of ​​legal protection and should have invoked an "exceptional situation clause".

Other insurers also tried to shirk

Uniqa was not an isolated case here, because Aviation Direct is a case in which another insurance company refused cover for legal action against Laudamotion GmbH in May 2020. The passenger had a return ticket for mid-April 2020, which was booked in January 2020, but could not be used due to a lack of flight operations. Lauda did not reimburse the money, but the chat customer service gave the consumer a special "bear": For reasons of capacity, a maximum of 10.000 flight tickets can be reimbursed per month. However, the passenger did not have a super cheap ticket, but paid around 250 euros per person for his journey.

The Lauda customer broke the collar and asked his legal expenses insurance for coverage, since all attempts - even by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt - did not lead to repayment. The nasty surprise then came from the insurance industry: Rejected, because Lauda would not have been able to fly due to official orders. That was absolute nonsense, because at no point was there a flight ban between Austria and Germany. The real cheek, however, lies in the detail: The clause that the company relied on states that there is no cover in the event of forced relocations by the authorities after reactor accidents. So Corona should be a radioactive super-disaster ala Chernobyl? The angry customer then wrote a peppered letter of complaint - by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt - to the CEO of this insurance company. Suddenly everything happened very quickly: the person received a transfer from the insurance company in the amount of 500 euros for himself and his wife. Two weeks later, a letter popped in in which they wrote that they "want to help immediately in these difficult times" and that "because of the low amount in dispute, they had decided to pay 100 percent of the legal costs". A lot of empty phrases followed that the customers would not be left in the lurch, but the bumbling attempt at rejection was not addressed in a single word.

HG Wien collects Uniqa's “sovereign orders” clause

Back to the lawsuit of the VKI against Uniqa-Versicherung: The lawsuit of the VKI was directed against a related clause of Uniqa Österreich Versicherungen AG. According to this provision, there is no insurance protection for the safeguarding of legal interests "in direct or indirect connection with sovereign orders that are directed to a majority of people due to an exceptional situation." Lawyer at the VKI.

The HG Vienna now judged this clause to be grossly disadvantageous. In the opinion of the court, the clause can only be interpreted in such a way that all connections are covered by a sovereign order. However, not every connection, no matter how remote, with a sovereign order can be sufficient for a risk exclusion, since otherwise there would be inappropriately large gaps in the insurance cover.

In addition, the clause is not transparent for several reasons: It is not clear to the average consumer whether “sovereign orders” only mean laws or also ordinances and guidelines, notices, explanations, decrees, etc. It also remains unclear whether recommendations by the government (such as a recommendation by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to refrain from unnecessary trips abroad) are covered by this and whether this only applies to sovereign orders from Austrian authorities or also those from foreign authorities. In addition, the word "exceptional situation" used in the clause is not clear enough. In individual cases, it would be left to the insurer to define the term “exceptional situation”. It is therefore not possible for the consumer to see through the scope of the clause. The clause is therefore ineffective.

"The COVID-19 pandemic does not give insurers a blanket authorization to reject legal protection," said Barbara Bauer, commenting on the ruling. "Consumers who have legal disputes due to the cancellation of events or trips due to COVID-19 can now again hope for cover from the legal expenses insurer." First instance judgment is not yet legally binding.