Under the Insurance Contract Act, insurers are not bound by a contract if, for deception purposes, the insured party incorrectly notifies or conceals facts from the insurer which would exclude or reduce the insurer's obligation to provide indemnification. Insurers can therefore refuse payment and withdraw from such contracts. The Federal Supreme Court recently confirmed this to be true even if an insured party does not make false statements directly to the insurer, but rather to a medical doctor who confirms their inability to work.
The Supreme Court recently abandoned its long-standing practice of restricting recourse under the Gini/Durlemann doctrine, which was first adopted in 1954. The court held that any non-contractual liability falls within the meaning of 'prohibited act', including all facts standardised as hazardous or simple causal liability. Private insurers must therefore be treated the same as social insurance carriers with respect to the causally liable party that causes an accident.
The Supreme Court recently dealt with the scope of a full and final settlement clause in an insurance matter. The decision confirms the rules for interpreting settlement agreements in insurance matters and emphasises the importance of carefully drafting the wording of such agreements if they are intended to be full and final settlement agreements of certain insurance claims.
The European Court of Human Rights recently concluded that Switzerland violated Article 8 of the European Human Rights Convention due to surveillance of an insured party. The case brings uncertainty regarding the extent of observation under Swiss law. Article 8 guarantees the fundamental right to respect private and family life. In its statement, the court held that Swiss federal law offers no precise legal basis for photo and video surveillance of insured parties.
In the context of loss of earnings insurance, the Federal Supreme Court recently had to decide whether sickness or the inability to work due to the respective sickness constitutes an insured event and therefore triggers the insurer's duty to provide insurance benefits. The court abandoned its existing case law in which it had appraised the sickness as a primary event for the determination of when the insured event had occurred.