Six pillars, one methodological standard — and the question of what must be assessed together.

What the overall view is about

An overall view is more than the sum of individual pieces of circumstantial evidence. In BGH III ZR 79/23, the Federal Court of Justice requires that trial judges assess all circumstances — those for and those against the allegation — in context. Six pillars, each of which the plaintiff submits is independently capable of supporting a claim under § 826 BGB — embedded in an architecture which, on the plaintiff's account, deliberately produces these complexes.

The six pillars in one sentence

• Pillar I — Deception in the contract genesis: V2 with a bonus/malus scale became V3 without a scale — sent with the accompanying phrase „Änderungen, die Sie gewünscht haben" [translation: "changes you requested"].
• Pillar II — Mis-policing: Policed for years as a "passenger car" despite early and repeated notification of the rental operation.
• Pillar III — Mis-billing and skimming: A thermostat that only regulates upwards — above the 70% threshold it is adjusted, but not when the loss ratio is low.
• Pillar IV — Reports to authorities despite the right of retention: Deregistration reports to the registration offices, although rights of retention had been declared.
• Pillar V — Blocking of judicial service procedures: Four postal service orders, four conspicuous tracking records — the PZU case-file objection.
• Pillar VI — Systematic status deception: EVIL — Erwerbs­gerichtete Vertrauens­induzierte Lager­täuschung (Earnings-oriented, Trust-induced Camp deception) as an overarching bracket.

Three touchstones for observers

Observers are not a court. They do not decide whether § 826 BGB is satisfied. But they can observe whether the methodological requirements are met — and that regardless of the direction in which the later decision turns out:

1. Context instead of ticking off — are the six pillars assessed together, or is each set aside in isolation?
2. Methodological treatment of the expert opinions — are the expert statements weighed on their merits, or formally dismissed as private opinions, without an independent methodological counter-position?
3. The substantive camp question — is the question answered whether the formal status statement in the footer can be neutralised by the main communication?

Symmetry of the touchstones

These touchstones protect both sides. A methodologically sound judgment can also dismiss the claim — if it assesses the pillars together, treats the defendants' arguments seriously and explains comprehensibly why intent, immorality, causation or damage have not been proven. Equally, a judgment upholding the claim can only convince if it seriously weighs the defendants' position.

Who advances these six pillars?

The plaintiff is a small GmbH from Leverkusen. So far it has only been able to show what is visible from the outside: its own contracts, its own letters, its own contacts with authorities, its own postal service certificates. On the plaintiff's account, it had no insight into the opposing side's internal communication channels, internal databases, internal sales commission models or internal loss assessment procedures.

Nevertheless, on its own strength it advances a six-part § 826 BGB claim against a holding company with tens of thousands of employees and one of Europe's largest insurers.

Six times § 826 — six independent bases

From the plaintiff's perspective, each of the six pillars stands on its own:

• Pillar I — Contract genesis
• Pillar II — Mis-policing
• Pillar III — Mis-billing
• Pillar IV — Abuse of authorities
• Pillar V — Service anomaly
• Pillar VI — Status deception

Six independent bases for § 826 BGB. Not one allegation in six variants — six allegations, each of which stands on its own.

Twofold motive

From pillars three and four, on the plaintiff's account, a twofold motive emerges:

Tip of the mountain — secondary burden of explanation

So far, on the plaintiff's account, only the tip of the mountain is exposed. As a small GmbH, the plaintiff could only put forward what was visible from the outside: its own six pillars. From the plaintiff's perspective, it stands to reason that further wrongs of relevance to many policyholders could be uncovered once the defendants are required to discharge their secondary burden of explanation — that is, once the internal data, internal commission models, internal loss assessment systems and internal sales training materials are disclosed. If the six pillars stand on their own strength, then on the plaintiff's account the probability is high that there is mechanism behind them too.

What is not claimed here

• This page does not present proven conclusions. The court decides on the proceedings — expected on 2 December 2026.
• The defendants contest the allegations in their entirety. This website reflects their position where it is on the case file.
• The names of individual agents, board members or brand ambassadors are not mentioned.

More on the methodological assessment: Legal framework · on the individual pillars: Pillars one-pager.