Facts

The case concerns a dispute between X. and Y. Versicherung regarding a life insurance contract. In 1992, X. took out a life insurance contract with Y. Versicherung, which was modified several times thereafter. The issue in dispute is whether these modifications constituted new insurance contracts or modifications of the initial contract. Y. Versicherung terminated the contract in 2003, citing an omission by X. in his initial health declaration. X. contested this termination and requested that Y. Versicherung be ordered to pay the due benefits.

The key facts are as follows

  • In 1992, X. took out a life insurance contract with Y. Versicherung.
  • In 1995, the contract was modified to increase the insured sums.
  • In 1996, the contract was modified to include the risk of accidental death, and X. had to fill out a new health declaration.
  • In 1998, the insured sums were increased again.
  • Y. Versicherung terminated the contract in 2003, citing an omission by X. in his initial health declaration.

Considerations

The court's decision is based on the interpretation of the facts and the applicable legal provisions. The court considered that the modification of the contract in 1996 to include the risk of accidental death constituted a new insurance contract, and not a simple modification of the initial contract. This conclusion is based on the fact that X. had to fill out a new health declaration in 1996, which indicates that the parties concluded a new contract.

The court also considered that the initial health declaration of 1992 was not relevant to the new contract of 1996, and that Y. Versicherung could not invoke an…