Facts
The appellant, [A.] , was insured with the insurance company [X. AG] for her activity within the framework of a collective sickness daily benefits insurance according to the Federal Act on Insurance Contracts (IPA). She reported a disability of 100 % on 4 April 2005 and received daily benefits until 30 September 2005. The insurance company terminated the benefits, as the appellant's disability no longer amounted to 25 %.
The appellant lodged an appeal against the termination of the daily benefits and claimed that she was disabled due to a somatoform pain disorder. The lower court dismissed the appeal, as the appellant had not sufficiently proven that she was disabled.
The appellant lodged an appeal with the Federal Court and claimed that the lower court had violated the principle of free evaluation of evidence by not considering the report of the treating physician as admissible evidence. She also requested the preparation of a polydisciplinary court expert opinion.
Considerations
The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, as the lower court had not violated the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The lower court had considered the report of the treating physician as unsuitable due to inconsistencies and incompleteness to prove a disability of more than 25 % retroactively.
The Federal Court also stated that the lower court had rejected the appellant's requests for evidence in anticipated evaluation of evidence, as it came to the…