The UNIQUA insurance company refused to cover legal disputes related to COVID-19. The Vienna Commercial Court ruled wrongly.
COVID-19 led to travel cancellations, flight cancellations or event cancellations. Customers had paid and received no service from the company. Therefore, in the spring of 2020, consumers increasingly sought their legal protection insurance. In these cases, however, insurers refused to provide so-called cover for related processes. The insurance companies rely on the so-called “exceptional situation clauses”. We complained. The Commercial Court (HG) Vienna now declares such clauses to be illegal. The verdict is not yet legally binding.
Initiated by the state
Our lawsuit was specifically directed against UNIQA Österreich Versicherungen AG. According to this there is no insurance protection for the legal support of the customers, quote: “In direct or indirect connection with sovereign orders, which are directed to a majority of people due to an exceptional situation.” In other words: When the state causes the crisis and many hits, then we don’t pay. “Such clauses or those with similar content are common in the legal expenses insurance industry,” explains Dr. Barbara Bauer, responsible lawyer at the VKI.
Disadvantage to consumers
The HG Vienna assessed this clause as grossly disadvantageous. When can the insurer correctly refuse legal protection? How narrowly or widely can the insurance company apply the exception clause? In the opinion of the court, the UNIQA 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 lead to a risk exclusion (insurance does not offer legal protection). Otherwise, according to the court, there would be inappropriately large gaps in insurance coverage.
Clause: opaque, ineffective
According to the court, the clause is opaque for several reasons: It is not clear to the average consumer whether “sovereign orders” are only to be understood as laws. Or can the insurer also understand ordinances and guidelines, notifications, explanations, decrees, etc. as such? 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. It is unclear and whether this only applies to 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.
Legal protection despite Corona
“The COVID-19 pandemic does not issue insurers with a blanket authorization to refuse legal protection,” commented Dr. Barbara Bauer on the judgment. “Consumers who have legal disputes due to COVID-19-related cancellation of events or trips can now take out cover again hope through legal expenses insurers. “
–
