June 17, 2021 – In the current comparison, Stiftung Warentest has taken into account agent offers for the first time. The test results show how necessary this is. However, these are still superficial, the calculation scheme is not transparent. The evaluation of the capital payment is also questionable.
In the July issue of their journal Finanztest, the Stiftung Warentest published a comparison of private accident insurances (VersicherungsJournal 17.6.2021).
- Claus-Peter Meyer (Image: Harjes)
For the first time, coverage concepts from underwriters and broker pools or associations were also taken into account. The product testers have thus reacted to years of criticism from the readership and industry.
The test results show that this step was long overdue. Now the readers of the magazine are learning about numerous first-class tariffs that had previously been ignored for no plausible reason. It is to be welcomed that the testers are now open to improvements.
However, it remains in the dark which intermediaries were asked by the foundation to participate in the settlement, but did not participate. The magazine also lacks a list of those insurers who shy away from comparison. After all, market sizes such as Generali Germany Insurance AG and Insurance Chamber Bavaria not there.
The performance comparison is not transparent
How the testers rate the performance criteria is also not transparent. In the journal it is stated whether the requirements of the GDV model conditions have been partially or completely exceeded, but not to what extent.
The calculation scheme for the test grades also remains hidden from the reader. So the judgments are incomprehensible.
With only 14 performance criteria, only a small section of the differences in conditions is highlighted. For comparison: The Ascore Das Scoring GmbH last used 51 requirements (12/13/2019). These included the innovation, war, radiation and rescue clauses.
Mixed price and performance
The evaluation of the capital payment with a weighting of at least 45 percent is also questionable. How exactly the grades were calculated remains unclear here as well.
Tariffs with a high progression scale tend to do better. The fact that comparable maximum benefits in the case of severe disability can also be represented with a higher basic sum and a lower progression scale is apparently ignored.
Overall, the current comparison has improved, but there is still plenty of potential for improvement for the product testers.
– .
