Facts
The plaintiff, an independent jewelry and gemstone dealer, had taken out a theft and robbery insurance policy with the defendant. On September 6, 1997, he reported an armed robbery to the defendant, which he claimed had occurred the previous day. The defendant refused to provide benefits, whereupon the plaintiff initiated a claim process. The cantonal courts dismissed the claim, and the Federal Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal.
Considerations
In this decision, the Federal Supreme Court clarifies its case law on the burden of proof and evidentiary requirements in insurance claims:
According to the basic rule of Art. 8 ZGB, the entitled party - usually the policyholder - must prove the facts that establish the claim, namely the existence of an insurance contract, the occurrence of the insured event, and the extent of the claim. The insurer bears the burden of proof for facts that entitle it to reduce or refuse the contractual benefits.
Since the proof of facts establishing a claim is often associated with difficulties in the area of the insurance contract, the policyholder who bears the burden of proof enjoys a facilitation of proof. It is sufficient if he makes the occurrence of the insured event predominantly probable. If the insurer is able to raise significant doubts about the policyholder's account of the facts within the framework of the…