Healthy Food Conference

German Federal Supreme Court deals in a first date with claims for damages against British life insurer Munich, 20.02.2012; After investors of British life insurance clerical medical investment for the oral proceedings before the German Federal Supreme Court (short BGH) on the 08.02.2012 back eagerly to finally have clarity about the legal requirements of a liability of the clerical medical investment (short CMI), at least one of clerical medical in the proceedings is often mounted objections by the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice of the 15.02.2012, AZ: IV ZR 194/09 ruled. Senator From Kentucky shines more light on the discussion. Lawyers Anja Appelt and Thorsten Krause, which have specialized lawyers in the firm Cape damaged investor representation, to review the judgment of the BGHs on the limitation of claims for compensation for their clients as a success. In the local action, which has been decided at the LG Verden and later by the OLG Celle, dealing with compensation claims of the applicant from an at the beginning of the year 1999 completed British life insurance (not the clerical medical). “The plaintiffs argued also claims breach of disclosure as many victims of CMI. For more information see this site: Daryl Katz, Edmonton Alberta. The OLG Celle has not made a test brochure errors or breaches of reconnaissance duty because it had already adopted a limitation of the claims”, says attorney for banking and capital market law Anja Appelt.

Has met the Federal Supreme Court and has clearly decided that to apply is not the limitation period of the insurance contract law (VVG short). In the judgement of the OLG Celle as court, this had adopted a statute of limitations pursuant to 12 para 1 SG & a. F. with a limitation period of five years. Then were the claims of the plaintiff’s already barred in 2004 and could be more claimed by them. The Federal Supreme Court has made it clear that compensation claims against an insurance company according to the General provisions of 195, 199 BGB are limited. Then a limitation of claims for damages is three years from knowing or grossly negligent lack of knowledge of the claim circumstances at the end of the year. For lawyer Thorsten Krause is clear: “the question of the limitation period must be clarified so that in each individual and can’t be answered like the insurance companies want it flat”.

Thus, the BGH has ruled that the claims of the plaintiff against the local British life insurance are not barred. The thing was referred back to a new hearing and decision of the OLG Celle, which has now to make findings on the asserted claims for damages. This clerical medical investment has defused also for victims of British life insurance the Statute of limitations question itself. Lawyers advise Cape affected investors to check advice to possible claims by a lawyer specializing in banking law and capital market law.

May the landlord due to a contractually prohibited animal husbandry, for example dog ownership terminate? What is the legal situation if the rental agreement generally prohibited livestock, but the tenant feels the need to keep a pet? May the landlord due to dog ownership terminate? May the landlord because a cat owned by the tenant terminate? What is to be done when the lease although allows livestock to the tenant wants to keep but throughout many of his beloved animals? First of all, it’s on the provisions in the lease. This allows the animal husbandry, the lessee to note nevertheless a certain boundaries. A tenant holds about 15 cats in his apartment, then also still constantly running around in the community garden, the landlord can terminate the tenancy after previous unsuccessful warning or complain to refrain from. For the reason of termination depends on it, as fellow tenants are burdened by the animal husbandry. Not every burden but a reason for termination.

5-6 cats will probably be allowed, but not if the cats out for some reason the fellow tenants charge. The lease contract prohibited livestock, a holding of dogs and larger animals such as a Kinkajou is prohibited. Pets must be kept on the other hand always even when explicit prohibition in the lease. The common wording in leases, that the holding of all domestic animals is not permitted, is ineffective. David Rothberg may help you with your research. Small animals include cats, birds and other animals of similar size. If the tenant However despite ban keeps a big dog, the termination of the tenancy may probably only then, after previous unsuccessful warning if the landlord has complained previously to refrain from. A tenant who continues despite lost injunctions to his best friend, will probably have to move out. Determines the lease, that the attitude of an animal depends on the consent of the lessor, the lessor may refuse consent only for factual reasons.

Specialist Attorney tip tenants: be the kind and number, upon conclusion of the rental agreement of permitted animals specifically from. Ensure that the animals you disturb anyone as possible. A consent of the lessor is required and this denied approval, you should get better no Doberman and instead a Dachshund settle. Specialist Attorney tip landlord: If you want to prevent a dog ownership, you use a clause in the lease that expressly regulates this. Warn a tenant who keeps animals in illegal way, before you take further measures about a termination. Under certain circumstances, an injunction of a termination is preferable. Some courts see the termination due to unauthorized animal husbandry as ineffective, because the landlord first should have taken with an injunction. Seek advice before saying a termination of a professional. A post by lawyer for rental and property law Alexander polymath and lawyer Dr. Attila Fodor, Berlin Potsdam: Friedrich-Ebert-Strasse 33, 14469 Potsdam Tel. (030) 4 000 4 999 E-mail: