Restaurateurs usually do not receive any compensation from their insurance companies in the event of corona-related closures.
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) decided on Wednesday in a pilot procedure.
An innkeeper from Schleswig-Holstein had sued the Cologne insurer AXA, with whom he had taken out business closure insurance before the pandemic.
It was supposed to compensate him for the loss of income for 30 days if his restaurant was forced to close due to contagious diseases.
But in the first lockdown in March 2020, his hopes were disappointed - rightly so, according to the highest German court of appeal.
The BGH explained that the insurer only had to pay for pathogens that were listed in the contract clauses.
The Sars-2 virus (Covid-19) was not mentioned there.
The policyholder could not have expected that AXA would pay for all illnesses under the Infection Protection Act that forced him to close. Because otherwise a list of the specific pathogens in the insurance conditions "wouldn't make any sense," said the presiding judge, Barbara Mayen, when the verdict was announced. The clause is also not opaque. After all, it is in both parties' interests that the insurer does not have to pay for every infection that occurs, as otherwise the premiums would have to be much higher and the insurers would be faced with incalculable risks.
Many insurers use similar clauses as AXA.
The judgment is therefore of far-reaching importance.
160 lawsuits about business closure insurance in the corona pandemic are pending at the Federal Court of Justice alone, and there are many more in lower instances.
The BGH wants to negotiate separately about insurers who have used other clauses.
(Az: IV ZR 144/21)