The Alliance's outdated contract holdings, according to BGH, present no significant drawbacks.
The Higher Regional Court of Justice (BGH) has recently validated Allianz's practice of allocating surplus funds from a pension insurance tariff to insurance policyholders, dismissing allegations of unfair treatment towards older contracts. The allegations, originally put forth by the Consumer Advice Center Hamburg (VZHH), have been a point of contention for over six years.
The BGH judges ruled that Allianz's practice of distributing surplus funds based on the interest rate of each policy does not disadvantage older contracts with interest rates above 2017 (Case No.: IV ZR 436/22). This, according to their judgment, is in compliance with regulatory laws.
In opposition, the VZHH argued that policyholders who signed contracts between 1994 and 2016 received a smaller share of the surplus, as compared to those who joined post-2017. The former group was affected more, as their contracts were designated to a lower surplus participation proportion, due to their higher interest rates.
The BGH, however, saw the company's approach as legitimate. They did not agree with VZHH's claim that these practices unethically favor newer contracts over older ones.
No favorable ruling for consumers
"Allianz's allocation of surplus funds to its pension insurance policyholders is imbalanced, to the detriment of customers who signed their contracts between 1994 and 2016," asserted Sandra Klug of the VZHH. The BGH's ruling, she argues, affirms this unfairness, as customers with older contracts continue to be assigned lower surplus participation than those with newer contracts. Consequently, as stated by Klug, the newer contracts artificially gain an advantage.
The proceedings initiated by VZHH spanned across six years. In the initial verdict, the Regional Court (LG) Stuttgart partially admitted the Consumer Advice Center's appeal, but dismissed it regarding the surplus participation (LG Stuttgart - Decision of March 26, 2020 - 11 O 214/18). Subsequently, the Higher Regional Court Stuttgart (OLG) overturned the decision around surplus participation in their judgment of February 3, 2022 (2 U 117/20). Ultimately, the parties involved lodged an appeal following the OLG's decision.
In addition to this, the VZHH also contested the validity of various provisions in the general insurance conditions, product information sheets, and insurance information. The BGH, unfortunately, did not render a judgment in favor of the consumers on this matter either.**
Despite the Consumer Advice Center Hamburg's (VZHH) allegations of unfair treatment towards older pension insurance contracts, the Higher Regional Court of Justice (BGH) validated Allianz's practice of allocating surplus funds from a pension insurance tariff to insurance policyholders. This decision upholds the company's practice, which distributes surplus funds based on the interest rate of each policy, even if older contracts with higher interest rates receive a smaller share of the surplus.
