Recession of pension benefits in case of overindemnification: application of conflict of law rules and start of the limitation period

Facts

Parties involved: A. (insured) against the Post Pension Fund (pension institution).

Courts involved: Insurance Court of the canton of St. Gallen, Federal Supreme Court.

Key dates: Decision of the IV of July 12, 2016, communication from the pension fund of May 25, 2021, decision of the cantonal court of August 18, 2022, appeal to the Federal Supreme Court on October 19, 2021.

Main issue: The Post Pension Fund requested the restitution of pension benefits paid due to overindemnification, based on incorrect information regarding valid income. The insured contests this restitution, arguing that the limitation period has expired.

Context: The insured A. received a disability pension from the Post Pension Fund due to a decision by the disability insurance (IV). The pension fund discovered inconsistencies in the pension calculations and requested the restitution of the excess benefits paid. The insured contested this request, leading to a dispute before the cantonal court and ultimately before the Federal Supreme Court.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the Post Pension Fund had the right to request the restitution of pension benefits paid due to overindemnification, and whether this request was subject to a limitation period.

The Court first determined that Art. 35a OPA applies to pension benefits paid due to overindemnification. This legal provision states that benefits wrongly paid must be restituted, subject to certain conditions. The Court then examined whether the pension fund had respected the limitation period for requesting this restitution.

The Court concluded that the pension fund discovered the inconsistencies in the pension calculations during a periodic review in February 2021. The restitution request was made in May 2021, which was within the one-year limitation period provided for in Art. 35a para. 2 OPA. However, the Court also noted that the pension fund should have discovered these inconsistencies earlier, during a review of the benefits in August 2018. Therefore, the limitation period had started running from this date, and the restitution request made in May 2021 was late…