Facts
The appellant [A.] concluded a motor vehicle insurance policy with the respondent [B.] Versicherungen. Over time, several changes were made to the contract, including the change of the most frequent driver. The appellant stated that his father was the most frequent driver, although this was not the case. After an accident in which the appellant's father was driving, the respondent demanded that the appellant repay the benefits, as he had breached the duty to disclose.
The Cantonal Court of the Canton of Schwyz ruled in favor of the respondent and obliged the appellant to repay the benefits. The appellant appealed to the FSCA and argued that the respondent had not discovered the breach of duty to disclose in a timely manner and that there was no causal link between the breach of duty to disclose and the damage.
Considerations
The FSCA examined whether the respondent had discovered the breach of duty to disclose in a timely manner. It found that the respondent had only become aware of the breach of duty to disclose after the accident and that it was not obliged to conduct investigations beforehand.
The FSCA also examined whether there was a causal link between the breach of duty to disclose and the damage. It found…