BGH Rules: Insurance Company's Fitness Tariff Portions Invalida
The growing trend among insurance providers offering discounts for health-promoting behavior is facing some backlash. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe recently criticized these types of reward systems due to a lack of transparency.
In this particular case, it wasn't about the illegality of reward systems generally. Instead, the BGH felt that consumers weren't adequately informed about how their wellness habits impacted their premium discounts. Therefore, the clause was deemed both non-transparent and invalid (Case No. IV ZR 437/22).
Furthermore, the court had an issue with the fact that missing or delayed reports of health status by the insured would result in the loss of premium discounts. These clauses didn't mention who exactly was responsible for any oversight on the insurer's part. As a result, even if there was organizational negligence from the company, the discount claim would still be void. The insurance law senate responsible for this decision also deemed this clause as invalid.
BGH upholds lower courts' verdicts
The Association of Insurers won their lawsuit against consumer organization when it challenged the insurance terms set by Dialog, a subsidiary of Generali. Dialog's disability insurance requires participation in the Generali health program. Members who regularly exercise and visit doctors can earn points, advancing their status to the levels of bronze, silver, gold, or platinum. These designations typically correlate with lower premiums.
However, the BGH declared that these clauses failed to make it clear for customers how their premiums were determined, so they were judged both unclear and invalid. Previous rulings by the regional court and Higher Regional Court of Munich had already deemed these same clauses invalid, and the BGH agreed with their decisions.
This marks the first time the BGH has addressed telematics tariffs, or those where certain behaviors of the insured result in lower premiums. Car insurance companies offer similar discount systems based on driving habits. On Wednesday, the court made its ruling on this matter.
Read also:
The controversy surrounding life insurance companies' fitness tariff discounts has reached the Federal Court of Justice (BGH). Statutory health insurance companies and private health insurance providers alike are under scrutiny for their opaque reward systems, which lack clarity for consumers on how their health behaviors impact premium discounts.
The BGH has validated lower court decisions that deemed certain fitness tariff clauses invalid, including those from Dialog, a Generali subsidiary. These clauses, which require participation in health programs and result in discounts based on wellness activities, did not clearly explain how premiums were determined to consumers.
Employees and taxpayers' associations have expressed concerns about employer-provided health insurance policies that require participation in private health insurance programs which could potentially lead to insurance advisor recommendations. The transparency of these clauses and any potential impact on consumer protection remains a critical issue.
Amidst the discourse, health insurance companies have defended their approach to fitness tariffs as a means to incentivize health-promoting behavior. However, the BGH's decisions have sparked a debate about the extent to which their reward systems should be transparent to maintain fairness and protect consumers' interests.
The ruling by the Federal Court of Justice has implications for other types of insurances, such as car insurance, that also offer discounts based on health or driving habits. Consumer advocacy groups and insurers must now work together to develop more transparent and understandable reward systems to ensure compliance with insurance law and consumer protection regulations.
This ongoing debate underscores the need for clear and concise communication in insurance contract terms, ensuring that policyholders can make informed decisions and fully understand the impact of their actions on their insurance coverage and premiums.
