This is problematic if whether disability is actually occurred is not clear and the disability insurer (so there is one) already does / should afford. Another problem is the definition of disability, which can be quite provider another between the insurers and the BU. In the worst case the health insurance no longer pays so and the disability insurance do not (yet). According to patterns and conditions, the right to convert the Treaty into an entitlement exists. Is the appropriate wording of the conditions ( 15): (2) the policyholder and the insured persons have the right ben, an announced by them or one due on passage of the Disability referred to in paragraph 1 letter b) terminated contract in accordance with the tariff in the form of a business insurance to continue, unless a recovery in employment is expected. The last sentence is also exciting.
It is crucial that a recovery is expected. But who decides that? In practice arise most discussions but also from the fact that alone the claim of the insurer, it was entered BU, is not clear. The doctor thinks, for example, that a return to work is possible again in x months, the insurer sees it (because he wants to stop the KT) different. It often follows a judicial dispute, which takes time, money and nerves. In a comment (Bach / Moser, private health insurance), the author, for example, wrote: "Darlegungs-and the insurer is party to prove for the entrance of the BU." (...) Proof is provided, if the insurer can prove that dei chances are so bad, that it remains open whether the insured person ever again at least 50% is capable. The proof is by a medical expert." The mere fact that the insured person some days, weeks again proportionately has worked is not sufficient to prove the opinion of the insurer. Also in the operation, but not in the same activity is therefore insufficient.
It is crucial that a recovery is expected. But who decides that? In practice arise most discussions but also from the fact that alone the claim of the insurer, it was entered BU, is not clear. The doctor thinks, for example, that a return to work is possible again in x months, the insurer sees it (because he wants to stop the KT) different. It often follows a judicial dispute, which takes time, money and nerves. In a comment (Bach / Moser, private health insurance), the author, for example, wrote: "Darlegungs-and the insurer is party to prove for the entrance of the BU." (...) Proof is provided, if the insurer can prove that dei chances are so bad, that it remains open whether the insured person ever again at least 50% is capable. The proof is by a medical expert." The mere fact that the insured person some days, weeks again proportionately has worked is not sufficient to prove the opinion of the insurer. Also in the operation, but not in the same activity is therefore insufficient.
