{"id":102697,"date":"2026-10-12T09:15:22","date_gmt":"2026-10-12T07:15:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ru.law\/?p=102697"},"modified":"2026-10-12T09:15:23","modified_gmt":"2026-10-12T07:15:23","slug":"hinterbliebenenrente-versicherung-anzeigepflicht","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ru.law\/en\/hinterbliebenenrente-versicherung-anzeigepflicht\/","title":{"rendered":"Widows' and survivors' pensions \u2013 when the insurer alleges a breach of the duty to disclose information"},"content":{"rendered":"

What surviving relatives can do if payment after death is refused due to an allegedly concealed pre-existing condition.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

If an insurer refuses to pay survivor's benefits after the death of a relative because a pre-existing condition was allegedly not disclosed when the contract was signed, this claim is subject to strict conditions and is often contestable. The burden of proof lies with the insurer, deadlines apply, and not every undisclosed illness justifies a rejection. Rogert & Ulbrich will review your case and enforce your claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The situation: Rejection in times of bereavement<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A survivor's pension or death benefit is intended to provide financial security for relatives after the insured's death. Especially when this benefit is needed, the insurer scrutinizes the contract particularly carefully. If a pre-existing condition appears in the documents that was not disclosed at the time of purchase, the insurer will refuse payment, citing a breach of the duty to disclose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For bereaved families, this is a double burden: in addition to grief, there is financial uncertainty. Lawyer Dario Kovac is familiar with this practice from his previous work on the insurance side. It's important to note: such a rejection is not a judgment, but rather a position of the insurer that can be reviewed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is the insurer refusing payment? Don't accept the reason without question, because a Insurer's refusal to pay benefits<\/a> is often vulnerable to attack.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the notification requirement at the time of contract conclusion requires<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

At the time of signing the contract, the insured was required to answer the health-related questions truthfully. However, this pre-contractual duty of disclosure under Section 19 of the German Insurance Contract Act (VVG) has clear limits, which also benefit surviving dependents. Disclosure was only required for information explicitly requested by the insurer in writing. A general or unclear question is to the insurer's detriment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, the issue of causality must be addressed. According to Section 21 Paragraph 2 of the German Insurance Contract Act (VVG), the insurer remains obligated to provide coverage if the undisclosed circumstance was neither the cause of the insured event nor the extent of the benefit. If the insured died from a cause unrelated to the undisclosed illness, the accusation is usually unfounded. Therefore, a concealed back condition does not justify a denial of coverage if the death resulted from an accident or a completely different illness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is the insurer citing a concealed pre-existing condition? Have it checked whether this was even asked about and whether it is related to the cause of death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Burden of proof: the insurer is now in charge.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A key point for surviving relatives: The burden of proof for a breach of the duty to disclose information lies with the insurer. They must demonstrate and prove that the insured was asked about the matter, that the information provided was false, and that the insured was at fault. General references to an entry in the patient file are insufficient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This evidentiary situation is often difficult for the insurer because the insured can no longer be questioned. Precisely for this reason, it is worthwhile to carefully examine whether the insurer is truly fulfilling its burden of proof or merely making assumptions. A further complication for the insurer is that it must document the exact wording of the health-related questions posed at the time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whether the accusation is valid is therefore often a question of... Contract interpretation and breaches of duty<\/a> and the evidence, which can be thoroughly examined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is the insurer basing the rejection solely on a single entry in the file? Have it checked whether this is sufficient to meet their burden of proof.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Deadlines and the insurer's duty to inform<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The time frame also protects surviving relatives. The insurer can only invoke a breach of the duty to disclose if several conditions are met:<\/p>\n\n\n\n