You do the final declarations with your signature to the contents of this Request. The judges run in the reasons for the decision, that this is not adequate instruction in the application forms of the Hanseatic League see mercury. If you are unsure how to proceed, check out Drew Houston. It says exactly: because exercised right of withdrawal the defendants without prejudice to its material permission according to 19 para 5 p. 1 VVG already that’s why not to, because the defendant improperly (…) pointed out the plaintiff on the consequences of a breach of precontractual duty of disclosure violation In addition the insurer referred in his resignation to the (old) 16 of the German insurance contract law. Since the Treaty was signed but after December 31, 2007, the new insurance contract law (VVG) shall apply. The relevant paragraph there is the section 19 et seq. SG & 2008. However, this alone is not reason enough to classify the resignation as unjustified.
However, begs the question, why is a company not in the position to call the correct legal basis. But what exactly is available now in the 19? (5) the insurer entitled to the rights to the paragraphs 2 to 4 only, if he the Policyholders by separate notice in writing on the consequences of a breach of the duty of disclosure has pointed out. The rights are excluded, if the insurer knew the undisplayed risk circumstance or the inaccuracy of the display. But the application form of the Hanseatic League of such obligation of the legislator’s Mercury not enough according to the judge. Continue reading through the reasons very clear formulations stand out. Here it says that: the instructions of the defendant complies with already in formal ways not legal.