Facts
Parties: Appellant [A.] against Respondent [B. AG] .
Facts: [A.] was involved in a proceeding before a German bar association and unsuccessfully applied for insurance coverage with [B. AG] . On June 19, 2023, he received a leave to sue, which was served on him on June 24, 2023. [A.] filed a complaint with the District Court of Meilen on October 26, 2023, which was not considered by the first instance as it did not meet the deadline and the evidence was insufficient. The Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich confirmed this decision with a ruling of May 6, 2024.
Main issue: The question of whether the complaint was filed on time and whether the evidence is sufficient to prove timely filing.
Considerations
The contested decision is a final decision of a last cantonal instance and the subsidiary constitutional complaint is the admissible remedy. The Federal Supreme Court examines the violation of fundamental rights only if they have been raised and substantiated in the complaint. The findings of fact of the lower court can only be corrected if they are based on a violation of constitutional rights.
According to Art. 209 para. 3 CPC, the leave to sue authorizes the filing of the complaint within three months. The appellant challenges the lower court's conclusion that he did not file the complaint on time. The lower court held that the electronic filing of the complaint did not meet the requirements of Art. 130 para. 2 CPC and that the physical filing was not sufficiently proven. The appellant, as a legally trained person, should have provided evidence for the timely mailing of the complaint, which he did not do.
The deadline for filing the complaint began on June 24, 2023, and ended on October 26, 2023, taking into account the suspension of the deadline during the court vacation. The appellant…