Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Munich court: sick guide dog no reason to cancel vacation

5 posts in this topic

Another verdict in support of insurance mafia in Germany: you buy travel cancellation insurance and believe it will pay if something happens and you cannot travel. No, it will not.

 

A blind guy's guide dog fell sick and was unfit to fly. The guy obviously could not fly to Spain without his dog, so he applied to insurance to compensate for lost travel cost. Insurance refused, Munich court said it was ok since there was nothing about guide dogs in their AGB.

 

Due to German Datenschutz media are not allowed to name the insurance company.

http://www.br.de/nachrichten/oberbayern/inhalt/blindenhund-krank-reiseruecktritt-100.html

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@yourkeau - I remember you were very much in favour of allways buying insurance against all financial odds. Buying incurance for every little thing such as cancelling a trip is a waste of money even if you discount the possibility of the insurance trying to wiggle out of it. The administrative costs for such small risks are way too high for this to make any sense at all for the customer.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure this will be overturned on appeal. A local court is only able to rule based on the actual fine print. It can't take things like civil rights or the special rights of the permanently disabled into account. That's a matter for a higher court.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LaChamois: Well, CDW insurance for a van (something you have not much experience to drive) you link to is not a little thing, but, yes, it also has small print. Flat tire is not covered, AFAIK, but totaling the car is (if you were not drunk). So, paying for CDW makes sense (with big Selbstbeteiligung) because there are accidents you can't prevent, and having to pay for the whole car price is no good. 

 

In this case it was insurance against 1000 euro travel costs, and it is useless.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, El Jeffo said:

It can't take things like civil rights or the special rights of the permanently disabled into account. That's a matter for a higher court.

(my amateur speculation, not legal professional)

Well, it can but only if discrimination is claimed by an applicant. In this case I smell bad lawyer who only brought the case over insurance conditions, while didn't raise the issue over Art.3 Absatz 3 GG.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0