According to the district court, discontinuance of the performance of business activities cannot be regarded as satisfaction of the condition for insurance termination, and it dismissed the case. On the contrary, the regional court acknowledged the claim, stating that discontinuance of business activities results in termination of insurance.
According to the Supreme Court, it was necessary to interpret the ambiguous article of the terms and conditions with regard to actions of the parties to the contract. Subsequently, the court provided an interpretation stating that discontinuance of the performance of business activities does not cause termination of an insurance relationship.
The Supreme Court also referred to the provision of Section 55 (3) of the Civil Code, which stipulates that in the event of any doubts concerning the meaning of consumer contracts, such contracts shall be interpreted in the manner which is more favorable to the consumer. Since the respective provisions of the Civil Code are a transposition to Council Directive No. 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the Supreme Court examined the wording of said Directive as well. Article 5, second sentence, of the Directive even uses a superlative: “… most favorable to the consumer” – in several language versions. The court regarded it fair so that the interpretation of unclear provisions of the insurance terms and conditions prejudiced the insurance company, which formulated them. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the appellate court and returned the case to the appellate court for further proceedings.
Úplné znění: Úplné znění