Facts
The appellant X. concluded a life annuity contract with a foundation in Vaduz in 1999, in which [C.] and her husband [B.] were insured persons. In 2000, the position of the policyholder was transferred to Mrs. D., who died in 2006 and appointed [A.] as universal heir. It is disputed whether [A.] as the new policyholder can demand the surrender value of the insurance or whether the monthly annuity payments to [C.] and [B.] must continue to be made.
The appellant requested the deposit of the surrender value and the annuity payments, as there is uncertainty about the identity of the creditor. The lower court rejected this, as it did not involve the same claim.
Considerations
The Federal Court concluded that despite the different performances (annuity payments or surrender value), there is uncertainty about the identity of the creditor, which justifies a deposit under Art. 96 and 168 para. 1 CO.
Although the performances are owed alternatively, as the policyholder can…