Facts
On 31 May 1989, W. died while insured with two different pension funds: the Eternit pension fund, where he was insured until his departure from his former employment on 31 May 1989, and the Migros Pension Fund, where he was insured from 22 May 1989 for his new employment. The Migros Pension Fund paid the survivors' benefits, but is requesting the Eternit Pension Fund to financially participate in these benefits. The question is which fund is obliged to pay the survivors' benefits.Considerations
According to the Federal Insurance Court, the OPA excludes proper double insurance, i.e. when an insured person is covered for the same risks by several pension institutions. Although W. had two simultaneous employment contracts, this was not a double insurance within the meaning of the OPA, as it was the same salary for the same main professional activity.
The Federal Court considers that in such a case, Art. 10(3) OPA should be applied by analogy, which provides that when an insured person starts a new job before the end of the old one, the new pension institution is competent. Thus, the Eternit Pension Fund is not obliged to pay survivors' benefits, which fall to the Migros Pension…