Builder's legal protection insurance - Signing the construction contract

I think, however, that a large insurer like ÖRAG has had this "selection" examined by its legal department. Ultimately, they are not obliged to insure anyone, and apparently they make use of that.

Where does this belief in the 100% legal compliance of large companies come from?!

VW also believed that they did not have to pay any compensation and that they were completely right. Building society banks believed they could charge an account management fee.

Just to name two examples where consumer protection agencies successfully won model declaratory actions in court.

Without wanting to go into ÖRAG now. But the argument "that's such a big insurance company. They have many lawyers. They surely do everything right" is not an argument in my eyes.

You can equate the attempt to get away unpunished with a hidden and unauthorized deactivation of the emission control system with an open regulation that is a prerequisite for concluding a BH RV ...

A PHB, for example, does not accept you as a new customer if you have reported PHV claims elsewhere in recent years ... is that also prohibited? A VS can set conditions (within a defined framework).

You can equate the attempt to get away with an unpunished hidden and unauthorized shutdown of the emission control system with an open regulation that is a prerequisite for concluding a BH RV ...

A PHB, for example, will not accept you as a new customer if you have reported PHV claims elsewhere in recent years ... is that also forbidden?
A VS can of course set conditions (within a defined framework).

VW’s lawyers believed AFTER the diesel scandal was uncovered that they did not have to pay compensation.
The lawyers of the building societies believed they were allowed to charge account management fees.
Savings banks were firmly convinced that their regulations on adjusting interest rates on premium savings contracts were legally correct.
Etc. Pp.

Again: I do not want to prove with the examples that the ÖRAG is acting unlawfully here.
My point is that the argument "this is a company with many lawyers. They know what they are doing" simply isn’t worth much.

Shut down the consumer advice centers. Withdraw all model declaratory actions. All major companies operate 100% in compliance with the law. After all, they have lawyers.

Where does this belief in the 100% legal compliance of large companies come from?! VW also thought they didn’t have to pay any compensation and were completely in the right. Building society banks believed they were allowed to charge an account management fee. Just to name two examples where consumer centers successfully won model declaratory actions in court. Without going into the ÖRAG now. But the argument "that’s such a big insurance company. They have many lawyers. They surely do everything right" is not an argument in my eyes.

Why I don’t agree with you here is that in all your examples the affected parties are already customers or were customers, or it’s about financial damages/additional burdens. With ÖRAG it’s about whether you become a customer at all. That’s something completely different. You simply have no legal right to a contract with ÖRAG. What is consumer protection supposed to do there? Sue for what? That the "not yet consumers" don’t get a contract? That not all big companies are always legally flawless just because they have a legal department is not what I said. What I said referred explicitly to ÖRAG and their approach to awarding contracts. And I don’t see any violation of rights there either. After all, a disability insurance doesn’t accept everyone either, and often because of a handicap or the risk being incalculable. Shouldn’t consumer centers also be up in arms about that?

No... you are wrong there. The goal in individual cases is not to sue for the conclusion of a contract. The goal is to consider the additionally concluded contract void. Consumer advice centers would file a model declaratory action with the aim that individual cases can refer to the judgment of this procedure and thus have a high probability of winning or do not even have to sue in the first place. This, in turn, leads to companies changing their conditions with a high probability.

In the area of real estate loans, the legislator has even established this with §492a in the Building Code. Paragraph 1 sentence 1 a.a.O. should not exist according to your logic. After all, the lender can freely decide to whom he grants a loan. The legal consequence is shown here in paragraph 2. (See my intended consequence above).

I am not an expert in the field of insurance law. It is quite possible that I am wrong and that it is legally impeccable. I have already written that above. I only addressed your causal chain.

But that is enough now.

I still see greater differences to the circumstances of ÖRAG with regard to §492a, which is why I would not consider the paragraph including the subsection as a reference. But yes, being right and getting your right are two different things, you are undoubtedly right about that :-) These "Zwangskopplungen" are found in many business models.