Frankfurt, Munich It can be uncomfortable for Allianz when it comes to Riester insurance: In the first hearing against the insurer on Monday, the Stuttgart Regional Court tended to be critical of a clause from the Dax group, with which it had reduced the pension payment to a Riester policyholder. The consumer advice center in Baden-Württemberg had sued.
Allianz and the consumer advocates now have the opportunity to express themselves in writing. The verdict is due on July 10.
The background is the reduction in payments from a state-subsidised pension insurance scheme. In the most recent phase of low interest rates, Allianz Lebensversicherung had reduced the contractually agreed pension factor in Riester policies and thus the amount of the expected pension payments.
In doing so, she referred to a trustee clause that is customary in the industry. This allows providers to exercise the right to unilaterally reduce contractually agreed pension payments. The consumer advice center in Baden-Württemberg then warned Allianz last September not to apply the disputed clause. When the latter did not respond, the consumer advocates complained.
In this specific case, a customer was sold a government-subsidized pension insurance called “Riester Rente Invest Guarantee” from Allianz in 2006. The contract promised a monthly pension payment of EUR 38.74 for every EUR 10,000 insured value. Allianz has now reduced the pension factor by around a fifth to EUR 30.84 per EUR 10,000 policy value.
The district court of Cologne had to deal with a comparable case. The court declared a clause by the provider Zurich Deutscher Herold to be invalid in February, with which the insurer wanted to reduce a Riester policy based on investment funds by around a quarter. Zurich has already appealed against the judgment at the Cologne Higher Regional Court.
Consumer advocates accuse the insurer of illegal action
According to the consumer advice center, Allianz cited the “decline in interest income on the capital market” and “the long-lasting current low-interest phase” as reasons. After his complaint, Allianz informed its customer that the pension factor would be increased again if the calculation bases changed, but it left the exact circumstances and calculation parameters completely open. Allianz has not commented on the current court case.
Niels Nauhauser, financial expert at the Baden-Württemberg consumer advice center, says with regard to the trustee clause: “Insurers are currently trying to break away from their pension commitments by invoking a consumer-disadvantaging clause in the small print.”
The consumer advice center considers the trustee clause to be illegal. Nauhauser admits that a reduction in pensions is permissible under certain circumstances under supervisory law.
However, Allianz’s trustee clause puts the insured at a disadvantage because it violates the principle of equivalence: the insurer unilaterally grants itself the right to reduce pensions without at the same time making a binding commitment to increase the pension if the conditions change again.
With the lawsuit, the consumer advocates want to ensure that customers can demand additional payment. In this case, consumer advocates recognize the scope.
It is estimated that millions of pension schemes could be affected
It is estimated in the industry that around 700,000 Allianz Riester policies may be affected. Depending on how many other pension insurances are affected, several million policies could also be put to the test. According to the insurance association GDV, there are a total of 41 million pension insurance policies on the market.
In contrast to the consumer advocates, Jörg Asmussen, General Manager of the GDV, emphasizes that such adjustments are generally permissible – but only for non-guaranteed services such as surplus and fund balances. Whether and how such clauses are used differs depending on the provider and the contract.
Allianz is the market leader in Riester insurance. There are a total of a good ten million insurance policies under the seal of the Riester pension, which has been criticized for years as too expensive, too complicated and often too low-yield.
With the traffic light coalition, the second federal government has already decided to reform private subsidized pensions in order to achieve more acceptance among the population, especially since private provision for old age is becoming increasingly important as a result of the declining state pension. A commission of experts is currently meeting and discussing reform ideas and alternatives to Riester.
The Bafin wants to intervene when there is a BGH ruling
According to estimates in financial circles, the financial supervisory authority Bafin, whose supervisory objectives include consumer protection, has already become aware of the topic of reducing pension payments. The financial supervisors comment “not on ongoing proceedings”, as it says there. But “in the event of a judgment by the highest court, we will examine whether there is a need for action by the Bafin in relation to the insurers”.
Consumer advocate Nauhauser now expects further warnings and lawsuits against insurers. His hope is that the issue will be given enough weight for a fundamental judgment by the Federal Court of Justice.
More: How useful is the Riester pension and what reforms are being discussed