After all, it was as a result of this finding Insurance contract law on the part of the legislator’s changed! And if the legislature so respond, should also be clear how the Court will decide. And it is also clear that the insurer will voluntarily make to collect just no judgment of the Court of Justice – with far-reaching consequences – about. The BGH’s opinion shows that the Federal Supreme Court judges are subject to influences from third parties and the lobbying efforts of the insurance industry is strong, according to estimates by the free Advisor in December 2010. Clear must be that this opinion is irrelevant. Only the Court can make a decision on this issue, the free advisors has announced that always. All this has not encourages the LV doctor finally before the ECJ. The free Adviser condemned this step.
Because no economic interest in a competitor can outweigh the interests of general consumers. It is imperative to clarify the facts before a court not German. After all, millions. Pity that the customers of LV doctor still sit in the corner and freely exercise these. In addition sleeps here a whole Brokership, which has made big promises its customers, now however, where action would be required, remains passive. The free consultant had informed there has been a request on the part of LV doctor, to cooperate with us as Prozesskostenfinanzierer. The free Advisor because not reasonable claims broke off the negotiations. The Metropolitan Museum of Art insists that this is the case. Also must leave ask LV doctor, how on the one hand for years contract calls for charges, which are to be used, on the other hand brings but not the individual cases to complain to complain as cost-sharing. Summarizes the free Advisor: customers pay funds, which at least does not apply according to the contractual statements made. Considering now in addition that there are periods of limitation according to some experts from termination, many customers lose their claims, if not on time will be charged.