Typical errors in a revocation instruction that lead to a “eternal” right of objection

We check if your in­struc­tion is in­cor­rect, free of charge for you! You just have to send us your cor­res­pond­ing doc­u­ments. But you may also like to know up­front, which typ­ical er­rors oc­cur in re­voc­a­tion in­struc­tions. Of course, the list can­not be con­clus­ive.

1. Violation against the requirement of clear design

The in­struc­tion needs to be ob­vi­ous for the poli­cy­holder, there­fore it needs to be clearly de­signed. It must not get lost in the con­tinu­ous text. Its high­light­ing can be done through big­ger Ty­po­graphy, bold print, dif­fer­ent color or fram­ing.

2. Issues with regard to the formal requirements of the notice of objection by the policyholder

It was man­dat­ory to point out to the poli­cy­holder, in which Form the re­voc­a­tion needed to be filed. For con­tracts, which were con­cluded be­fore 31 July 2001, it was man­dat­ory to file the ob­jec­tion in writ­ten form. For con­tracts as of 1 Au­gust 2001, the text format was valid. In many cases, the in­struc­tion was miss­ing such a ref­er­ence or the text format was re­quired in­stead of the writ­ten form.

3. Incorrect information about the period of objection

The period of ob­jec­tion for con­tracts con­cluded un­til 7 Decem­ber 2004, ac­coun­ted for 14 days. From 8 Decem­ber 2004, it ac­coun­ted for 30 days.

4. Incorrect information at the beginning of the period of objection.

The period of the ob­jec­tion of 14 or 30 days starts with the re­cep­tion of the in­sur­ance policies, the gen­eral con­di­tions of the in­sur­ance and all the other con­sumer in­form­a­tion. This needs to be poin­ted out to the poli­cy­holder. In many cases, this ap­plic­able term of these trig­ger­ing doc­u­ments is miss­ing.

5. Missing or false terms of deadline

The period of ob­jec­tion is re­spec­ted by the timely sub­mis­sion of the de­clar­a­tion of ob­jec­tion. The “timely” re­ceipt of the state­ment by the in­surer is not de­cis­ive for the dead­line. This must also be poin­ted out in the in­struc­tion, for ex­ample by “the timely dis­patch is suf­fi­cient”.

How to reach us

Schirp & Part­ner Recht­san­wälte mbB
Leipzi­ger Platz 9
10117 Ber­lin, Ger­many

Phone: +49 (0)30 – 327 617 0
Fax: +49 (0)30 – 327 617 17
E-​Mail: mail@​schirp.​com

Legal Advisory Label

Please take note that we can not answer consultatively here. If you happen to request that anyways, you may give us full power of attorney. For that, simply download this form, sign it and return it to us.


WIRECARD disaster: Internal whistleblower warned EY as early as 2016

Plaintiff rep­res­ent­at­ives see tail­wind for law­suits against EY FT, Septem­ber 30, 2020, Olaf Storbeck | With ref­er­ence to an ad­dendum to the KPMG re­port of April 27, 2020, the “Fin­an­cial Times” re­ports that an EY-​internal whis­tleblower had already warned of ir­reg­u­lar­it­ies at WIR­E­CARD in 2016. Spe­cific­ally, the warn­ings dealt with a com­pany ac­quis­i­tion in In­dia and […]

KGAL TimberClass 1: Interessensbündelung und Vertretung

Der Ak­tions­bund Akt­iver An­leger­s­chutz e.V. ver­tritt bereits zahlreiche An­leger des im Jahr 2008 von der KGAL GmbH & Co. KG emit­tier­ten Wald­fonds. Wirtschaft­lich sieht es für die Gesell­schafter des Fonds schlecht aus. Die ver­sprochenen Aus­schüt­tun­gen blieben bisher aus! Der AAA hat den Fonds ana­lysiert und em­pfiehlt drin­gend zu han­deln! Quelle: Ak­tions­bund

WIRECARD AG files for Insolvency – Legal Action against EY is the best Way Out for aggrieved Shareholders, Bondholders and Derivative holders

Few minutes ago, Wir­e­card AG filed for in­solv­ency. This means that Wir­e­card AG is likely to be elim­in­ated as an op­pon­ent for legal pro­ceed­ings. Dam­aged in­vestors, how­ever, have the op­tion of re­ly­ing on Wirecard’s an­nual aud­itor, Ernst & Young Wirtschaft­s­prü­fungs­gesell­schaft (EY). In­form­a­tion on the Law­suit against Ernst & Young » The law firms Schirp & Part­ner and at­tor­ney […]

WIRECARD disaster of June 18th, 2020: Must EY compensate the investors?

Berlin-​based law firms Schirp & Part­ner and Dr. Marc Lieb­scher have filed their first law­suits against EY…

German Property Group GmbH threatens investors with insolvency

Ger­man Prop­erty Group GmbH (formerly Dol­phin Cap­ital GmbH) has re­cently sent a let­ter to its in­vestors ur­ging them to provide de­tails of their in­vest­ment. It also threatens to file for bank­ruptcy if they do not agree to re­struc­tur­ing the com­pany, i.e. ask­ing the in­vestors for a morator­ium and selling it to a con­sor­tium. We strongly ad­vise our cli­ents […]

WIRECARD AG: Independent Special Audit Required

The price of the WIR­E­CARD share is still un­der pres­sure and so far the com­pany has not been able to dis­pel the al­leg­a­tions bey­ond a reas­on­able doubt…

All Announcements »

Copyright © Schirp & Partner Solicitors | Legal Notice | Privacy Statement
Zum Seitenanfang