Facts
The present case concerns the entitlement of an insured person to benefits from the further occupational pension scheme of the Migros Pension Fund. The Pension Fund had rejected the benefits beyond the statutory minimum, as the insured person allegedly did not fully disclose her state of health upon joining the fund.
The insured person was already suffering from various mental and psychosomatic complaints at the time of joining the Pension Fund, which she had not disclosed. The Pension Fund then asserted a breach of the duty to disclose and wanted to provide only the statutory minimum benefits.
However, the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the Pension Fund had forfeited the possibility of relying on the breach of the duty to disclose, as it had exceeded the prescribed period of four weeks according to the analogy to Art. 6 VVG.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court stated that the breach of the duty to disclose and its consequences are generally assessed according to the relevant statutory or regulatory provisions of the pension institution. If the statutes or regulations are silent on this matter, the assessment must be made by analogy to Art. 4 et seq. VVG.
In the present case, the statutes of the Pension Fund did regulate the duty to disclose and the consequences of its breach, but were incomplete in that they did not provide for a…