Actors and roles

Three parties — and proceedings with signal effect for the further development of the law.

We use exclusively functional designations. Names of individuals from agent, board or brand-ambassador contexts are not given — not even in the later episodes.

Plaintiff

TeslaNow GmbH

Fleet rental operator · Tesla rental model

According to the case file, the plaintiff side operates a fleet of Tesla vehicles in a rental model — in particular in the short-term and long-term segments.

Defendant 1 (DVAG)

Deutsche Vermögensberatung AG

DVAG · financial sales organisation

In the proceedings DVAG appears as a financial sales organisation. According to the plaintiff's submission, also the central distribution and communication interface. In the insurance area, according to its own statement in the imprint, a tied agent under § 34d(7) GewO. K1.8

Defendant 2 (Generali)

Generali Deutschland Versicherung AG

Insurer of the fleet policies

Generali Deutschland Versicherung AG is the carrier of the insurance contracts in dispute.

The distribution relationship

Two defendants — economically, contractually and personally interlocked.

The case file refers to a 2017 disclosed "exclusive distribution" agreement between DVAG and Generali, to economic interlocks, and to interlocks at supervisory-board and management-board level.

  • 2017 disclosed exclusive distribution relationship K42K43
  • Economic interlocks K44K49K66
  • Supervisory-board and management-board interlocks K46K47
  • Commission ratio at the project status: 69.8% of DVAG earnings from Generali brokerage business K49
  • Cumulative dividend flow DVAG to Generali approximately 700 million EUR K44
Defendants' strongest position on this

The tied-agent model is recognised by law. Commissions are not prohibited. Exclusive distribution is not automatically immoral. From the defendants' perspective, the interlock alone does not yet prove immorality, intent or damage.