Frequently asked questions on the proceedings.
Answers to recurring questions — formulated as reportage, open-ended, with cross-references to the relevant episodes of the series.
What is § 826 BGB?
§ 826 BGB [Section 826 German Civil Code] regulates intentional immoral damage. The claim requires that three conditions are met together: immorality, intent and damage. An unfavourable contractual clause or poor advice are not sufficient.
More on this: Legal framework.
What does "overall view" mean?
The overall view is the consolidated assessment of several indications. The court weighs incriminating and exculpating indications in their context, not in isolation. This applies symmetrically — exculpating circumstances must also enter the weighing seriously.
Important: an overall view does not mean that many weak points automatically become strong. Nor does it mean that the court has to follow one party.
Why is it always "the plaintiff submits" and not simply "DVAG has …"?
Because nothing has been proven before the court has decided. This series is reportage, not an indictment. Incriminating statements are consistently designated as the plaintiff's submission or as evidence position — and the defendants are given voice in their strongest form in every episode.
Why does the series not name individuals?
Names of persons from the agent, board or brand-ambassador context are consistently not given. The matter concerns the legal question of structures and roles, not individuals. We use exclusively functional descriptions — for example DVAG agent, Generali specialist department, board level or brand ambassadors from elite sport.
What is the difference between an insurance broker and a tied insurance agent?
An insurance broker is, under classical doctrine, understood as a fiduciary of the customer. He typically acts in the customer's interest in surveying the market.
A tied insurance agent acts as an intermediary for specific insurers or product providers. This model is recognised by law — it is neither prohibited nor automatically disadvantageous.
The legal question in these proceedings is therefore not whether tied distribution is permitted, but whether the customer is led into the opposite perception of the role.
What is behind the term "EVIL"?
EVIL is an abbreviation from the plaintiff's second statement of claim extension of 27 April 2026. It stands for Earnings-oriented Trust-induced Loyalty deception [working translation of "Erwerbsgerichtete Vertrauensinduzierte Lagertäuschung"] and structures the plaintiff's structural thesis into six pillars: money, staging, training, legal camp, expert convergence and academic embedding. Episodes 01 to 06 are devoted to these pillars.
When and where is the hearing?
Before the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court, 10th Civil Chamber, case number 2-10 O 2/26. Oral hearing on 2 December 2026.
Who is behind the series?
The publisher is TeslaNow GmbH, Leverkusen — one of the parties to the proceedings, as plaintiff. The series is transparently identified as content of one of the parties to the proceedings. It follows strict editorial guidelines that are observed in every episode — also and especially where they create headwind for the plaintiff side within its own material.
More on this: Disclaimer and Imprint.
How can I, as a journalist, request background materials?
Via the press area. It is access-protected; press representatives receive access on request. Contact details can be found in the Imprint.
Does the series spread an evaluation of the proceedings?
No. The series provides a methodological framework — not a recommendation as to how the court should decide. A claim-dismissing judgment can also be methodologically sound if it weighs the pillars together and seriously examines the defendants' arguments. Equally, an allowing judgment can only persuade if it has weighed the defendants' position.