Glossary.

§ 826 BGB — Intentional immoral damage

Provision in the German Civil Code which triggers damages if someone intentionally and in a manner contrary to good morals causes damage to another. Three conditions must be met together: immorality, intent and damage. § 826 BGB is the central basis of the plaintiff's claim in these proceedings — see Pillars and Legal framework.

§ 286 ZPO — Free assessment of evidence / overall view

Provision in the German Code of Civil Procedure. It obliges the court to assess all evidence and the entire result of the hearing freely — not each point in isolation, but in their context. From this the plaintiff's reasoning derives the overall view: six complexes individually capable of supporting § 826 liability together yield a picture that is to be evaluated in the overall assessment following BGH case-law ("a usable degree of certainty that silences doubt without entirely excluding it").

Tied agent / tied representative (§ 34d para. 7 GewO)

An insurance intermediary contractually tied to a single insurer (or insurer group) and distributing its products. He is not an independent broker on the customer's side; he is on the side of the insurer. The tie must be disclosed under § 34d para. 7 GewO. Plaintiff's submission: with Defendant 1 (DVAG) this formal disclosure is neutralised by a counter-running coach and advisor staging (see EVIL). The defendants contest this.

EVIL — Earnings-oriented Trust-induced Camp deception

Term from the second statement-of-claim extension of 27 April 2026. From the plaintiff's perspective it denotes the structural condition without which the operative pillars would not function: Earnings-oriented (geared to commissions), Trust-induced (actively generated through coach and sparring-partner language), Loyalty (camp) deception (concealment of the tied camp affiliation). Full explanation on the EVIL page. The defendants contest a camp deception.

MFK — Model declaratory action (§ 41 VDuG)

Type of action under the Consumer Rights Enforcement Act (VDuG), which since 13 October 2023 has replaced the former model declaratory action of § 606 ZPO (old version). With it, factual and legal preconditions can be clarified that are identical for many similarly situated claims. § 1 para. 2 VDuG places small undertakings on a par with consumers where they have fewer than 10 employees and at most EUR 2 million turnover. More on the MFK page.

Evidence notation: BLD / K / exhibit

Compact markers in the running text that refer to specific exhibits from the case file.

• K… — plaintiff exhibit (e.g. K13.1 for exhibit K13, item 1). Filed by the plaintiff into the case file.
• BLD… — defendant or contract document (e.g. BLD 22). Originating from the operations of DVAG or Generali.
• Exhibit… — other exhibit which cannot be unambiguously attributed to either of the two party categories.

The exhibits themselves are part of the case file and are not public; on the website they are only referenced, not depicted.

Camp affiliation / camp deception

In insurance distribution there are three "camps": the insurance counsellor (in the customer's camp), the broker (formally neutral, mandated by the customer) and the tied representative (in the insurer's camp). Which camp the intermediary occupies determines, in legal terms, which duties apply toward the customer. Plaintiff's submission: anyone acting as a tied representative but staging themselves as a customer-side coach deceives about their camp affiliation. The defendants contest this.

Survey of relevant public / INNOFACT

Representative opinion survey by which what the relevant public addressed actually takes from an advertising or brand presentation is measured. Several thresholds play a role in the case file: 26% (OLG Frankfurt 2010, Allensbach quota, 6 U 238/09), 42.1% (OLG Köln 2026, Ipsos, 6 U 63/25 marg. 53) and 46.1% (INNOFACT survey n=4,000, ISO-certified, exhibit K58). Plaintiff's submission: three out of four respondents do not recognise the camp affiliation of DVAG agents; 46.1% actively misclassify them.

Immorality

Legal concept from § 826 BGB. An act is immoral if, according to the general sense of decency and taking into account the concrete attendant circumstances, it offends against good morals. The Federal Court of Justice typically reviews this on the basis of an overall assessment — motive, means, purpose and recognisability of the infliction of damage. Plaintiff's submission: the accumulation of the individual events yields a planned infliction of damage. The defendants contest this.

Overall view

Method by which the court, under § 286 ZPO, assesses all complexes of fact of a case together. Six individual errors yield a different picture in the overall view than each individual error on its own. Pictorially: six pillars together carry one roof (see Pillars). Even a single pillar alone would, on the plaintiff's submission, support § 826 liability — the overall view further reinforces the picture.

Plaintiff's submission

Factual assertions which a party (here: the plaintiff TeslaNow GmbH) makes in the proceedings — not yet established by the court. On this website every contested fact is expressly designated as "plaintiff's submission", because the truth of the assertions is decided by the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court (case no. 2-10 O 2/26) — and not by this website. The defendants' position is rendered visible; no final and binding decision exists.

Intent

Knowledge and will to bring about the elements of the offence. § 826 BGB requires at least conditional intent: the wrongdoer must at least have approvingly accepted the damage. Plaintiff's submission: the accumulation of similar events implies that the infliction of damage is not random. The defendants contest this.

Pecuniary damage

Difference between the assets that would exist absent the damaging conduct and the actual assets. Under § 826 BGB pecuniary damage is compensated without further preconditions — differently from § 823 BGB, which typically requires a violation of a protected interest.

Bonus/malus tier

Contractual mechanism under which the insurance premium depends on the loss history: with a good loss ratio the premium falls (bonus), with a bad one it rises (malus). It is contested in the proceedings whether the originally agreed bonus/malus tier (V2 / BLD 7) was deleted in the follow-on contract V3 (BLD 8/10/11) without express highlighting — the plaintiff submits this and invokes the cover email with the wording „Änderungen, die Sie gewünscht haben" [translation: "changes that you requested"] (K13.1 / BLD 9). The defendants contest a duty of separate highlighting.

Mis-policing

Term from the plaintiff's reasoning: the insurance business was wrongly classified — the Tesla rental fleet was, despite the rental use being known to the insurer, policed as a normal passenger-car fleet. This affects the premium and the premium dynamic (see Pillar II). The defendants contest a liability-establishing mis-policing.

Mis-accounting / skimming

Plaintiff's term: the running quarterly invoices continue to list the vehicles, after the bringing of the action, as „Pkw" [translation: "passenger car"] or „Privatfahrzeug" [translation: "private vehicle"], although the fleet is in rental use (exhibit K36). Plaintiff's submission: this yields a systematic skimming via the premium mechanism. The defendants contest this; the premium development is contractually compliant.

Deregistration / deregistration pressure

Under German compulsory insurance law a motor vehicle without valid liability insurance is to be deregistered; the insurer reports an insurance lapse to the registration office. Plaintiff's submission: three threat points are documented in the case file (BLD 22, K17.3, BLD 45a) which acted as means of pressure — nine months before the actual deregistration in November 2024. The defendants submit that the deregistration notifications followed statutory requirements.

Passenger car vs. self-drive rental vehicle

Insurance-technical distinction. A normal passenger car is geared to private or business own use; a self-drive rental vehicle is left to changing renters — this is significantly more premium-relevant. It is contested in the proceedings how the Tesla fleet is to be correctly classified for insurance purposes. From the procedural submission, an internal email (BLD 28) is invoked, in which the SFV registration question is described as premium-relevant. The defendants contest that this gives rise to immoral worse treatment.

Postal service / service anomaly

Contested in the case file are events in which judicial or official letters were, on the plaintiff's submission, systematically delayed or did not arrive. The plaintiff submits that the probability of accidental accumulation is mathematically very small (see Pillar V). The defendants contest an intentional blockade.

Exclusive distribution agreement

Contractual arrangement between DVAG and Generali from the year 2017 (exhibits K42 / K43) which establishes an exclusive distribution tie between the two groups — DVAG as tied agent, Generali as exclusive insurer for certain product lines. The plaintiff uses these exhibits as the basis for the EVIL attribution line under § 278 BGB.

Status: 8 May 2026. Term definitions are added when new file states suggest it. Factual errors or missing terms? Notice to justiz@teslanow.de — will be reviewed and corrected versioned.