The Celle Higher Regional Court recently found that the Hanover Regional Court wrongly rejected an application for legal aid by a passenger who claimed that a flight attendant had injured her knee with a service cart. However, it remains to be seen whether the damages will be reduced or excluded due to any contributory negligence on the part of the applicant.
Almost all airlines worldwide are having to deal with severe financial problems due to the consequences of fighting COVID-19 and the grounding of fleets for several months. Even Lufthansa considered filing for insolvency during negotiations with the German government about state aid. This article addresses German insolvency law in general and some special features regarding airline insolvencies.
The new Berlin Brandenburg Airport (BER) looks set to open its gates on 31 October 2020. Even if BER opens as currently scheduled, the public damage caused by its troubled history will remain. It remains to be seen how the numerous delays have harmed the original idea for the airport given the fact that its infrastructure has already become a bit outdated without ever having been used.
Under long-term maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) agreements, airlines must usually pay a certain rate per flight hour to obtain engine or other component maintenance and repair services or just to have access to a certain spare parts pool. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, most airlines have ceased their entire flight operations. This article addresses possible contractual clauses and statutory rights on which a claim to adjust payment obligations under an MRO agreement may be based.
A recent Eilenburg Local Court decision highlighted that a booking or reservation confirmation issued to a passenger by a tour operator with whom a flight has been booked should not necessarily be regarded as a confirmed booking under Article 3(2)(a) of the EU Flight Delay Compensation Regulation, even if the booking is referred to as an 'e-ticket voucher'. This decision underlines that the burden of proof for the existence of a confirmed booking will be borne by the passenger.
In 2019 the Stuttgart Regional Court considered a dispute about claims for damages following a vehicle transfer from Turkey to Germany. Following a traffic accident, the plaintiff delivered the vehicle to a workshop and notified the defendant of damage to the roof of the vehicle and the loss of various items that were allegedly in the vehicle. The court held that the defendant was not liable for the alleged theft of the items.
The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority has issued a general administrative act regulating the conduct and run-off of cross-border business of insurers in the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland or Gibraltar. What does this mean for insurers based in the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland or Gibraltar in respect of their cross-border activities in Germany and for German insurers in respect of their cross-border activities in the United Kingdom?
In a recently published decision, the Federal Court of Justice ruled on the obligation of an assured to notify its insurer of a risk-relevant fact prior to the conclusion of the insurance contract. The decision clarifies the important distinction of cases in which there is an objective breach of duty and cases in which there is not. Negligence is relevant only where there is an objective breach. If there is no objective breach, as found in this case, fault is irrelevant.
The first court decisions concerning business shutdown insurance are now available. The key questions in this respect include whether COVID-19 qualifies as a communicable disease, whether a business that has ceased business operations on a small scale (eg, which now offers only delivery services) qualifies as being 'shut down', and how loss will be calculated and what benefits or compensation insurers must ultimately provide depending on actual loss.
In a 2018 decision, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) clarified the requirements for valid and duly executed insurance risk exclusions for the export of goods, which are of significant practical relevance. The BGH's decision sets strict requirements for the transparent and valid wording of risk exclusion clauses in insurance contracts. Those principles, which have been confirmed within the scope of transport insurance, apply to all insurance sectors.
A recent Federal Supreme Court concerned a clause in a consignor's general terms and conditions, according to which loaded vehicles had to be monitored while parked or parked where sufficient safety was guaranteed. Following the theft of the cargo in question, the court held that this clause was not sufficiently clear as to impose on the carrier any duties of care beyond the legal requirements. This judgment has strengthened the position of carriers.
The list of associations which were involved in the negotiation of the Freight Forwarders' Standard Terms and Conditions (ADSp) 2017 and now recommend them is significantly larger than for the ADSp 2003. However, whether this alone is sufficient to affirm a comprehensive inclusion of the entire ADSp 2017 in a transport contract is doubtful. This article discusses a Heidelberg Regional Court decision which provides clarity on this matter.
A recent decision highlights that it is not a precondition of an obstacle to carriage or delivery that the agreed carriage has become impossible. Rather, it is sufficient that the transport can no longer be performed in accordance with the contract. Moreover, such an obstacle exists if the carrier loses possession of the goods because the sub-carrier now transports the goods under a freight contract concluded directly with the consignor.
In 2019 the Flensburg court considered damage to a sailing yacht which had occurred during a sailing regatta (ie, a series of boat races) in 2010. The judgment strengthens the legal position of insureds with yacht hull insurance. It highlights that insurers have the onus to prove that the insured was aware of the unseaworthiness when the voyage commenced. It is not enough to prove the unseaworthiness – insurers must prove that the owner was aware thereof.
In a recently published decision, the Würzburg Regional Court held that if a carrier does not submit a single offer to the consignor for carriage by different means of transport for the entire route as requested, but rather makes separate offers for the inland and ocean-going routes, and these offers are accepted by the consignor, it is not a true multimodal contract, but rather an inland waterway contract and a separate ocean-going contract.