Facts
[L.], born in 1949, has been employed at B. AG since April 1, 1990 and was enrolled in the Pension Fund for Trade, Commerce and Industry (PKG) for mandatory and supplementary occupational pension provision as of that date. In May 1995, [L.] had to undergo surgery at Hospital [S.] due to Crohn's disease, and from January 16 to 25, 1996, she was hospitalized again at Hospital [S.] for the same condition. In a certificate dated March 13, 1996, her general practitioner informed Providentia Swiss Life Insurance Company, the reinsurer of the Pension Fund, that [L.] had been suffering from Crohn's disease since 1980. On April 26, 1996, Providentia wrote to the Pension Fund that the documents reviewed to examine the insurance claim showed that the insured had committed a breach of the duty to disclose when signing the registration form on April 5, 1990, by concealing a significant risk factor. In a letter dated May 1, 1996, the Pension Fund informed [L.] that it would only grant her the minimum benefits under the mandatory occupational pension provision due to the breach of the duty to disclose.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that the breach of the duty to disclose and its consequences in the area of the more extensive occupational pension provision are to be assessed according to the statutory and regulatory provisions of the pension institution. In the absence of corresponding norms, Articles 4 et seq. of the Insurance Contract Act (VVG) are to be applied by analogy. The pension institution can withdraw from the pension provision contract within four weeks of becoming aware of the breach of the duty to disclose.
The Federal Supreme Court notes that a retroactive reservation in the…