Alte Leipziger

“What is now the winner” compared with 11, 12 or 18 space “better made? The sad part is… anything relevant. Let’s look at the insurance company no. 1 (Aachen Munich SBU) and ranked No. 11 (old Leipzig SBU). In the area of related professions and the end age of 0.8 differ the two companies in the reviews of applications 2.1 0.5 (very good) (good), (very good) to 1.9 (good) or the conditions.

“The winner gets here Munich Aachen 0.7 (very good), the Alte Leipziger with 0.5 a very well” according to financial test. Even though the terms differ in all basic areas, these are but comparable assessed. Spontaneously and without reading every word of the conditions more than 10 reasons come to mind, 10 statements where the conditions of Aachen are worse than the 11th-placed product Munich BUV. What happens when a (vorrubergehenden) or longer-term retirement from the profession? What kind of qualifications and activities is put by the insurer in fact checking? What good is a first recognition, the insured person if the pension payment in the inspection (review) will be reinstated? Not so much. Problems that may be quite relevant in the case of performance fabrics are quite better solved with the worse placed tariff. Are employees with so-called management authority required to make a reorganization? What is at all a reasonable reduction in income if the employer does not want to have to perform and what? Is reasonable about 1%, 10% or 20%? Or is reasonable”a certain amount of income? Relying here on the case-law, which is already set, is unwise. Why so choose not a condition work what can it? Even when the questions after performance exclusions, so events that do not result in performance, it has probably not as accurate look. Why that just slipped, who knows! And have been so we have considered some other areas why always very one-sided.


Comments are closed.