Six pillars, one foundation — and § 826 BGB above.
In the proceedings TeslaNow GmbH v. DVAG / Generali (LG Frankfurt am Main [Frankfurt am Main Regional Court], case no. 2-10 O 2/26, oral hearing 2 December 2026) the plaintiff submits § 826 BGB [Section 826 German Civil Code, intentional immoral damage] not as a single allegation, but as a load-bearing construction: six pillars — contract genesis, mis-policing, mis-accounting, authority notifications, service-of-process anomaly, status deception — rest on the foundation of Loyalty deception and, on the plaintiff's account, support the allegation of intentional immoral damage. Each pillar carries the allegation on its own; only the overall assessment shows the picture to be evaluated under BGH III ZR 79/23. Click a pillar to jump directly to the explanation with explainer video.
Tip: click on a pillar to reach the detailed explanation.
Deception in contract formation
Concealed contractual deterioration: V2 with bonus/malus tier became V3 without any tier — accompanied by the cover formulation „Änderungen, die Sie gewünscht haben" [translation: "changes that you requested"].
Plaintiff's thesis
The plaintiff sees in the change from V2 to V3 a structurally asymmetric amendment of contract: not a detail was deleted, but precisely the mechanism that would have allowed a premium relief in the case of a good loss ratio. Upwards the lever remained, downwards the tier disappeared. The cover email with the wording „Änderungen, die Sie gewünscht haben" [translation: "changes that you requested"] and the later confirmation „Bonus-Malus-Staffel herausgenommen" [translation: "bonus-malus tier removed"] are, on the plaintiff's view, the opposing party's own evidence.
Defendants' strongest position
- According to the case file, V3 was even signed in two versions (BLD 10, BLD 11).
- The cover email shows that the plaintiff knew the new version and had to review it.
- Commissions, tied distribution and exclusive distribution are recognised by law.
- Own evidence does not necessarily entail immorality, intent and damage.
Source core
BLD 5 / 7 V1/V2 with tier · BLD 8 / 10 / 11 V3 without tier · K13.1 / BLD 9 cover email · BLD 45 later confirmation 23 September 2025 · K42 / K43 exclusive distribution tie
The crime-scene sentence
The central sentence, on the plaintiff's submission, is not: "Please review everything afresh." It is: „mit den Änderungen, die Sie gewünscht haben." [translation: "with the changes that you requested."] Precisely therein lies, on the plaintiff's view, the core of the deception. The sentence reassures. It psychologically closes the review. It says: this is not newly negotiated. This is merely implemented. In honest business dealings a differential review would have been required at this point.
Thermostat metaphor
The image is simple. In V2 there was a thermostat. With a poor loss ratio the premium could rise. With a good loss ratio it could fall. In V3 the cooling was removed. The heating remained. What had been a fair regulating mechanism became, on the plaintiff's submission, a one-way street: risk downwards on the customer, advantage upwards on the insurer.
Signature ≠ informed consent
The signature proves that a contract was signed. It does not, on the plaintiff's submission, automatically prove that the plaintiff recognised, understood and intended every concealed structural change. On the plaintiff's submission, it was not openly stated: "We are deleting your premium reduction." What was stated was: "These are the changes that you requested." That is the difference between contract conclusion and informed consent.
Mis-policing
Rental fleet or private vehicle? Over years, on the plaintiff's submission, policed as „Pkw" [translation: "passenger car"] — despite early and repeated communication of the rental operation.
Plaintiff's thesis
Already in the initial inquiry of 10 December 2019 the rental operation was expressly communicated: „Langzeitvermietung von Tesla Fahrzeugen" [translation: "long-term rental of Tesla vehicles"], „nicht mit anderen Selbstfahrer-Vermietfahrzeugen zu vergleichen" [translation: "not comparable with other self-drive rental vehicles"]. Nevertheless, the fleet was, over years, policed as „Pkw" [translation: "passenger car"]. Only BLD 28 of 15 July 2024 (Hoffmann) acknowledges internally: „sehr viele Pkw mit einer Zulassung als Selbstfahrermietfahrzeug … Auswirkungen auf die Prämie" [translation: "very many passenger cars with registration as self-drive rental vehicles … impact on the premium"].
From the plaintiff's perspective, this is a continuing damage by omission of the requisite clarification and correction. From the plaintiff's view, no policy would be better for the customer than a policy that actively excludes the main purpose — the rental operation: in the event of a major loss, the risk entry „Pkw ohne Vermietung" [translation: "passenger car without rental"] of Defendant two would optimally document the exclusion of cover.
Defendants' strongest position
- Industry-standard tariffing — competitors categorise similarly (BLD 27 R+V).
- Defendants' vocabulary „Tesla-Abos" [translation: "Tesla subscriptions"] instead of „Selbstfahrer-Vermietfahrzeuge" [translation: "self-drive rental vehicles"] — a semantic dispute.
- Mis-policing as a category of classification is contested as a liability-establishing norm.
- From the defendants' view, in the case of damage cover would have been granted — the framework agreement covers the rental operation.
Source core
BLD 3 initial inquiry 10 December 2019 · BLD 28 Hoffmann 15 July 2024 · BLD 13/14 pre-printed declarations 02/2022 · BLD 27 R+V categorisation · K2.2 sample set of individual policies · K8 family chain of complaints before contract conclusion · K28.4 board-level addressing 02/2026 · K36 continued as „Pkw" Q1/2026
What is a policy?
A policy is a deed — like a birth certificate. It states with legal binding force who, what, when and against what is insured. What is written in the policy applies. That raises the question: what happens if the policy states something different from what the customer actually needs insurance cover for?
Win-win for the insurer — lose-lose for the customer
On the plaintiff's submission, an asymmetric configuration arises. First possibility: no major losses occur over the contract years — the insurer has collected the premium without bearing a material risk. Pure profit. Second possibility: a major loss occurs — and the policy itself, with the risk entry "passenger car without rental", optimally documents the exclusion of cover. In both cases the insurer wins, on the plaintiff's view.
On the plaintiff's view, no policy is better for the customer than a policy which actively excludes the main purpose.
"We would have paid" — and the plaintiff's reply
According to the case file, the defendants defend themselves with two arguments: the framework agreement covers the rental use, and in the event of damage they would have paid anyway. The plaintiff replies: a soft retroactive assurance in court proceedings does not, on the plaintiff's submission, cure what is set down with legal binding force in the policy.
Refusal to correct — supervisory relevance
To date (May 2026) the contested policies have, on the plaintiff's submission, not been corrected. Several years after the first written complaint. A few months after board-level addressing of the complaint. A knowingly false risk entry in insurance deeds placed into legal commerce via board facsimile is, on the plaintiff's view, also supervisorily relevant.
Mis-accounting and skimming
A thermostat that only adjusts upwards: at loss ratios above 70% adjustment is made, at low ratios — nothing.
Plaintiff's thesis
The one-sided malus practice and the refused bonus relief, on the plaintiff's submission, do not represent a mere omission but an active skimming system. The three-cycle mechanism (BLD 15/19/23) is documented: LR 2021 = 82.5% → adjustment; LR 2022 = 74.8% → deductible change; LR 2023 = 36.8% → no adjustment. Generali declined a premium adjustment despite this loss ratio with reference to an internally applied threshold „bis 70 % keine Beitragsanpassung" [translation: "up to 70% no premium adjustment"] (BLD 23).
From the plaintiff's perspective, this is an active skimming system: the defendants collected money to which they were not entitled and withheld money to which the plaintiff was entitled.
Defendants' strongest position
- Plaintiff's written consent to premium increase 1 April 2022 and deductible change 1 January 2023.
- 70% threshold as tariff custom — no extra-contractual obligation to reduce.
- Framework agreement 1 January 2024 provides for profit participation (BLD 25).
Source core
BLD 15 LR 2021 = 82.5% · BLD 19 LR 2022 = 74.8% · BLD 23 LR 2023 = 36.8% / 70% threshold · K21 LR 2024 = 3.9% · K23 / K25 premium reduction 24 February 2025 · K27 DVAG „übliche Regelung" [translation: "customary arrangement"] 10 October 2025 · BLD 25 profit participation 2024
The contract year 2024 — "telephone dictate"
The contract year 2024 stands out on the plaintiff's submission. Loss ratio 3.9%. An exceptionally good ratio. Background: the plaintiff had been put off for years — if the loss ratio remained good, a reduction would be granted the following year. Promised every following year, never delivered. Even at 3.9%, on the plaintiff's submission, a senior manager of Defendant two then decided spontaneously and arbitrarily by phone: „Die Beitragssenkung ist vom Tisch." [translation: "The premium reduction is off the table."] The call was summarised by email — and remained unchallenged.
The mechanism in writing — and the self-description "typical"
On the plaintiff's submission, the mechanism is not only in the conduct, it is in writing.
On 24 February 2025 a senior manager of Defendant two writes verbatim: „bei einer Schadenquote bis 70 % keine Beitragsanpassung." [translation: "at a loss ratio of up to 70% no premium adjustment."] To which an employee of Defendant one replies, forwarding: „Ja, das ist bei unseren Verträgen typisch." [translation: "Yes, that is typical for our contracts."]
A written self-description of the mechanism. Up: yes. Down: no.
Win-win for the insurer
On the plaintiff's submission, a systematic win-win configuration arises for the insurer. Loss ratio high: the premium is raised retroactively — the insurer recovers the money. Loss ratio low: nothing happens — the insurer keeps the premium that it collected for a risk that did not even materialise. Pure profit. On the plaintiff's view, a mechanism that shifts the economic risk entirely to the customer.
Authority notifications despite right of retention
Deregistration notifications to the registration offices, although rights of retention had been declared — sovereign enforcement mechanisms used as a private collection instrument.
Plaintiff's thesis
On the plaintiff's submission, the defendants used deregistration notifications with sovereign effect as a collection instrument. The DVAG's central deregistration threat formula is already documented in writing on 14 February 2024 (BLD 22): „alle Teslas … werden stillgelegt, wenn du die Beiträge nicht zeitnah überweist" [translation: "all Teslas … will be deregistered if you do not transfer the premiums promptly"]. Anyone who triggers authority notifications leading to vehicle deregistration is using sovereign enforcement mechanisms as a private collection instrument.
The rights of retention declared by the plaintiff expressly and repeatedly are, on the plaintiff's submission, ignored throughout. In December 2025 Generali confirmed that the chairman of the board personally arranged the response and described the continuation of the mechanism as a „Entscheidung" [translation: "decision"] (BLD 53). One day later the next deregistration threat issued.
Defendants' strongest position
- Deregistration notifications were made „gesetzlichen Vorgaben folgend" [translation: "in compliance with statutory requirements"].
- Reminders are usual pre-litigation assertion of outstanding claims.
- Influence on sovereign processes is contested as a feature of liability.
Source core
BLD 22 deregistration threat formula 14 February 2024 · K17.1 deregistration November 2024 · K35 / K35.2 authority decisions · K28.6 board confirmation December 2025 · K31.2 reminder 23 February 2026 · BLD 53 board forwarding · BLD 50 board signatories
Pressure payment 17 December → new termination 19 December
A documentary reflex from the file: on 17 December 2025 the plaintiff makes, on the plaintiff's submission, a pressure payment under reservation. On 18 December Defendant two confirms receipt of payment in its own words: „Sie haben für Versicherungsfälle nach der Zahlung wieder Versicherungsschutz. Wir haben die Zulassungsstellen informiert." [translation: "After payment you again have insurance cover for insurance events. We have informed the registration offices."] One day later, on 19 December, a new reminder with new terminations for precisely the same contracts goes out — deadline 8 January. Deregistration despite payment — within 24 hours of confirmation.
Defendants' own wording contradicts the defence line
According to the case file, the defendants submit that the instrument of authority notification does „kein Mittel zur bloßen Beitragsdurchsetzung" [translation: "not constitute a means for the mere enforcement of premiums"] — it is made in compliance with statutory requirements to avoid post-liability. The plaintiff replies: in Defendant two's own wording, on 18 December the restoration of insurance cover was conditioned on payment. That is not, on the plaintiff's submission, a statutorily prescribed mechanism — it is a payment-securing conditional logic. In the defendants' own wording.
Twofold motive
On the plaintiff's submission, a twofold motive arises.
On the plaintiff's submission, there is a documentary key sentence: the defendants write verbatim on 10 October 2025: „Wir unterbreiteten Ihnen bereits ein Angebot zur Deeskalation. Unseren Vergleichsvorschlag haben Sie nicht angenommen. Daher läuft nun der in unseren Mahnschreiben angekündigte Prozess." [translation: "We already submitted to you a de-escalation offer. You did not accept our settlement proposal. The process announced in our reminder letters is therefore now running."] On the plaintiff's view: settlement offered → plaintiff declines → the authorities machinery is switched on. With board knowledge.
Blocking of judicial service of process
Four postal-service-delivery orders, four conspicuous tracking records — the postal-service-delivery file complaint and the alleged interference with the judicial service-of-process operation.
Plaintiff's thesis
On the plaintiff's submission, this concerns interference with the mechanics of the judicial proceedings themselves. On 23 March 2026 the plaintiff complained of the incompleteness of the case file regarding the tracking data of the deliveries arranged by the court itself, and requested that the court request, ex officio, the electronic tracking data for all four postal-service-delivery orders from Deutsche Post AG.
On a mathematical-statistical basis the plaintiff quantifies the probability of the observed anomaly — depending on the calculation basis — between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 100 million (BNetzA data + intra-letter-centre cleansing). The reminder of the unresolved complaint was submitted by pleading dated 20 April 2026.
Defendants' strongest position
- Influence on sovereign service-of-process operations is expressly contested (BLD short reply 14 April 2026).
- Tracking anomalies can also occur randomly (operational noise).
- The corporate group does not eliminate the postal independence of the delivery channels.
Source core
BLD 1 / BLD 2 4 postal-service-delivery orders · K35 / K35.2 authority service-of-process operations 2025 · Pleading 23 March 2026 1st extension of claim with evidence requests 2–13 · Pleading 20 April 2026 reminder of unresolved file complaint · BGH III ZR 79/23 margin no. 39 et seq. life experience
Three probability calculations — three orders of magnitude
How likely is it that it was coincidence? The first extension of claim contains, on the plaintiff's submission, three graduated calculations:
- 1 : 10,000 — only the two complaints, under § 18 PostG [Section 18 German Postal Act]. Under settled case-law on affiliation, this is the threshold for "practically proven".
- 1 : 6.9 million — all four deliveries, on the most defendant-friendly basis, using national letter-delivery-time data from the Federal Network Agency.
- 1 : 100 million — intra-letter-centre cleansing (the Regional Court and DVAG headquarters are in the same letter centre). For context: on the plaintiff's submission, this is roughly a six-number lottery hit, times seven.
Not final proof — file completion
An important clarification on the defendants' objection of "fishing for evidence": these numbers, on the plaintiff's submission, do not even need to provide final proof of an interference in these proceedings. They suffice, in any event, to complete the court file by four specifically identified PDF files of digital tracking data, ready for retrieval from the court's side.
Procedural asymmetry
A procedural asymmetry arises here, on the plaintiff's view. The defendants use the manual postal service-of-process certificates — precisely the certificates whose probative force, on the plaintiff's submission, requires clarification in this configuration — to justify extended deadlines for their statement of defence. At the same time, they oppose the obtaining of the electronic tracking data for the same operation with the accusation that this is fishing for evidence.
On the plaintiff's view: the same family of documents is accepted on one occasion, when it helps — and rejected on the other, when it would clarify.
Systematic status deception
EVIL — Earnings-oriented Vrust-Induced Loyalty deception. The overarching bracket which, on the plaintiff's account, makes pillars I to V operationally functional in the first place.
Plaintiff's thesis
On the plaintiff's account, status deception is more than the initial deception — it is a comprehensive structure of motive and exploitation that draws customers into the system under false pretences and skims them in the long term. With the 2nd extension of claim of 27 April 2026 the plaintiff requests, pursuant to § 256(2) ZPO, an interim declaration that DVAG did not act towards the plaintiff openly as a tied agent under § 34d(7) GewO [Section 34d(7) German Trade Regulation Act] in the camp of the product provider, but, by overlaying this camp affiliation, assumed a customer-oriented, interest-preserving advisory and trust position and thereby realised an Earnings-oriented Vrust-Induced Loyalty deception.
Six expert assessments (Annexes K58 to K63) are intended to underpin methodologically the structural convergence from empirical research, business psychology, design, frame semantics and discourse linguistics.
Defendants' strongest position
- Private expert opinions are party submissions — not court-appointed expert reports.
- Status disclosure in the imprint is „überobligatorisch, aber transparent" [translation: "above the obligation, but transparent"].
- The plaintiff is a GmbH with comparison offers — not a defenceless consumer.
- Terms such as coach do not make a tied agent into a broker.
Source core
Pleading 27 April 2026 2nd extension of claim (160 pp.) · K1.8 imprint / § 34d(7) GewO · K42 / K43 exclusive distribution · K44 dividend flow · K46 / K47 supervisory board interlocks · K49 commission ratio 69.8% · K53.4 financial advisor agreement · K58–K63 expert convergence
On which bench does the coach sit?
Imagine a football player. He is standing before an important match. Next to him stands a coach. The coach says: I analyse your situation. I accompany you. I help you make the right decision. Naturally the player trusts him. For a coach normally stands on the side of his team. But what if this coach is, in legal terms, not at all neutral between the two sides? What if he appears as a personal companion but is in fact bound to a particular product camp?
The player need not know all the contracts. But he must understand on which bench his coach is sitting. Only then can he decide how much trust to place in his recommendation.
Status changes trust
In financial and insurance distribution, on the plaintiff's submission, this role question is decisive. If I believe that my contact is neutrally seeking the best solution for me, I trust differently. I ask less about product ties, less about commissions, less about the interests behind the recommendation. Status changes trust — and trust changes decisions.
The decisive legal principle
On the question of camp affiliation, on the plaintiff's submission, the small print does not count. What counts is the role the customer attributes to the appearance from advertising and external communication. If a false role allocation arises in the customer's mind, that is, on the plaintiff's submission, an act of deception — and prohibited by law.
It is not the status indication in the footer that decides. It is the picture that arrives in the customer's mind.
EVIL — the foundation beneath the six pillars
Six pillars rest on a common foundation. The plaintiff has given it a name: Earnings-oriented Vrust-Induced Loyalty deception — for short EVIL. Without this load-bearing surface, the operational pillars would, on the plaintiff's account, not function.
In the second extension of claim of 27 April 2026, EVIL stands for a four-part architecture: Earnings-oriented (geared towards commission and portfolio earnings), Vrust-Induced (generated by coach and sparring-partner language), Loyalty deception (formal disclosure of tied-agent status is neutralised by the body of communication).
The defendants contest an immoral camp deception. They submit that tied-agent status under § 34d(7) GewO is recognised by law and is properly disclosed to customers.