Seattle Sounders

A judgment of the Federal Court of justice speak also for the permissibility of separate cost offsets (from 20.01.2005 - III ZR 251/04). After that running the Supreme Court inter alia that at separating brokerage contract and insurance policy not only legally, but also actually made the claim on the broker pay regardless insist the later fate of the insurance contract and a premature termination of the insurance does not touch the obligation to pay the brokerage rates. Contrary to the opinion of the 10th Civil Chamber of the Landgericht Rostock (in their judgment of the 06.08.2010-10 O 137/10) not the legal right of termination the policyholder will undermine this also or the scheme of also no penalty comes immediately. Because the closing costs could be paid by a single payment and be transparent to the policyholder. If the contract costs so clearly in mind will be the customers, it was for him to calculate whether the contract is economically meaningful. The risk one is economically necessary as detrimental given legal transaction the policyholder but then deliberately would. The Supreme Court was at the 20.03.2013 in two Revision procedure also deal with the question, whether additional cost compensation agreements are allowed.

In the process the AZ.: IV ZR 162/12 had the lower courts (LG Leipzig, 19.04.2012 3s 571/11;) AG Oschatz, Seattle Sounders 2 C-390/11) upheld the claim of the insurer on payment of the total cost in the procedure to the AZ.: IV ZR 265/12 was the insurer in the Court of appeal (LG Cottbus, 20.06.2012 1 S 142/11;) AG Lahiri 28.07.2011 20 C-226/10) remained unsuccessful. Shortly before the trial, the insurer has withdrawn his appeal against the repellent action judgment of the LG Cottbus, the dismissal was therefore valid. The second pending procedure the insurer at the hearing said the waiver of the claim pursued by him, and may require more from the respondent policyholder no further payment on the cost equalization agreement.