”
Trip curtailment due to an accident: decisive point in time for insurance benefits
\n\n
The Munich Local Court had to address the question of at what point in time a trip is to be regarded as curtailed within the meaning of an insurance policy when a skiing accident occurs during a stay abroad. In the underlying case, the accident meant that the injured person was prevented from continuing their travel activities. Nevertheless, the return journey did not take place immediately, but only at a later point in time.
\n
Presentation of the facts
\n\n
A policyholder suffered a serious sports accident on the ski slope during a package tour, as a result of which any further stay under the planned holiday conditions became impossible. The trip curtailment insurance concluded under the contract was intended to apply in this context as soon as the trip ended early due to illness or accident. The insurance company, however, differentiated between the date of the accident and the actual date of return travel.
\n
Point in dispute: start of the insured curtailment period
\n\n
The insurer took the view that its obligation to pay should be measured by the day on which the return journey was actually commenced. Opposed to this was the insured’s argument that the curtailment of the trip had already occurred upon the occurrence of the serious injury and the subsequent impossibility of further making use of the travel services. This conflict led to judicial clarification in order to determine unambiguously the relevant point in time for calculating and triggering the insurance benefits.
\n
Reasons for the decision of the Munich Local Court
\n\n
The court held that what is decisive for the insured event is when the traveler is objectively no longer able to make use of the travel services contractually booked and paid for. The necessity of an immediate return journey could not be compellingly inferred from the insurance terms and conditions. Rather, what matters is from what point in time the further services—such as accommodation, meals, and planned leisure activities—are no longer meaningfully usable as a result of the accident.
\n
Scope and duration of the obligation to pay
\n\n
Consequently, if an accident occurs that results in the traveler’s complete incapacity to act, the trip curtailment is already to be regarded as having occurred from that day. There is no obligation to provide proof of an early return journey if the use of the main travel services is excluded. The insurer therefore owes the contractually agreed benefit for the unused travel days from the time of the accident, irrespective of when the actual departure takes place.
\n
Significance for the interpretation of contracts in trip curtailment insurance
\n\n
The court’s decision underscores the relevance of careful interpretation of the insurance terms and conditions and shows that the actual circumstances of the loss of use of benefits, not the return travel dates alone, are decisive for triggering benefits. This concerns in particular the area of package travel contracts in conjunction with supplementary insurance clauses, which can often be interpreted differently.
\n\n
For companies, investors, and high-net-worth private individuals with complex contractual arrangements at home and abroad, this case law provides important guidance on the decisive criteria for insurance and processing issues in the event of unexpected trip curtailments. If there is uncertainty regarding the drafting, interpretation, or enforcement of such contractual instruments, qualified legal support is recommended. Further information on tailored legal advice in the field of contract law is available at the following link: Legal advice in contract law.
“
