Facts
A proceeding regarding a collective daily sickness allowance insurance is pending between A. (plaintiff, appellant) and B. AG at the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich. In the context of this proceeding, the plaintiff filed a request for the granting of gratuitous legal representation. The Social Insurance Court rejected the request for gratuitous legal representation, as it considered the plaintiff not to be in need based on his assets from the withdrawal of occupational pension assets.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court confirms the decision of the Social Insurance Court. It states that the withdrawal of occupational pension assets after the occurrence of the insured event must be credited to the applicant's assets in determining destitution under Art. 117 lit. a CPC. A conversion of the withdrawal of pension assets into a hypothetical annuity and consideration as income is not required.
The Federal Supreme Court justifies this by stating that the insured person generally has the possibility to opt for a lump-sum payment, and that this decision has various advantages and disadvantages. A schematic equal treatment between annuity and capital is not provided for by law. The limited seizability of the pension assets also does not change the fact that they can be taken into account as assets in the calculation of…