As the Central Secretary of the Commercial Association (KV), Switzerland H. S. had a good wage. He could, therefore, afford to even retire early. At the age of 60 years, he retired in 2006 from the professional. A few months earlier, the widower had met a new partner with whom he had moved in soon after. He reported the cohabitation in accordance with the regulations of the pension Fund, to ensure that his partner get a survivor's pension, if he should before you die.
In the summer of 2016 H. S. received a Letter from the KV-pension Foundation. It said that it will reduce due to financial reasons at the beginning of 2017 the pension conversion rate. As H. S. had already bought an annuity, he was not affected by this Change. The entry into force of the new regulations of the pension Fund was looking at, but a few months later, he noted that the conditions for life partner pensions were tightened.
According to the old regulations, life partner, got a pension if the partnership had lasted for at the death of the insured Person for at least five years. In the new regulations state that a community must already have at the time of Retirement of the insured Person for at least five years to complete.
H. S. and his partner meet the conditions for a partner's pension after the old regulations, since they were already together for more than ten years. They had not learned but was only a few months before H. S.’ Retirement know, what was sufficient according to the new rules. Thus, the partner of H. S. would be left with nothing.
is not allowed Retroactively
That a pension Fund changes the rules for performance claims, is permissible, provided that the statutory Minimum is guaranteed to continue. This is the case here, because pensions for cohabiting partners are not required by law. the pension funds may not, however, detract from, acquired rights to benefits. In other words: Current pensions is not. The partner of H. S. has not acquired the right to a survivor's performance, because the H. S. is still alive. You must expect, therefore, that the conditions for a survivor's pension change. Is crucial in your case, only the regulations in the time of the death of H. S. in force.
pension funds are obliged to inform the Insured about any Changes to your claims.
Now, pension funds are obliged to inform the Insured, if you change your rules. It is not enough that you point out only on innovations and the Insured then the regulations sifting through to find out what is in the future thing. "As soon as you makes Changes that have an impact on the performance claims, it must demonstrate to the pension Fund in a personal Avis the Insured's clear what it's about," says Raffaella Biaggi, a specialist lawyer for insurance law in Basel.
Also, the Information should be done at an early stage, if possible, as soon as it was clear that there would be Changes, adds Biaggi. The Insured should have the opportunity to respond in a timely manner and to take any measures to secure claims.
cash to. pay
the retired H. S. alleges that the pension plan of the Commercial Association, to have its information obligation has been violated In fact, not a word is in the Letter the Fund in the summer of 2016 about the new features starting in 2017, informed, that the conditions for a partner's pension change.
the representatives of The Fund say, a piece of Information would have put H. S. on anything, because he would already be able to do anything. The resist the H. S. speaks: "Would have informed the Fund in Writing obligation pursuant to, then I would have my life-partner in front of my 70. Birthday, getting married and securing." As the innovation came into force, was H. S. already 70 years old. A marriage at this age would guarantee his partner is only the minimum statutory widow's pension.
Apart from the lack of Information it finds. h. p. pushing, that the Pension Fund has changed the terms and conditions for the partner's pension from one day to the other for all Insured persons. It would have been possible without further ADO, the new rules only after a transitional period to apply.
Since the former KV-Secretary has to know that his partner should go to his death empty, he tries to take the Pension Fund of the KV in the duty. He relies on the protection of confidence: Because the Board have failed to cash in with its action against good Faith, should you apply the old conditions, and his partner, a pension to pay.
To support H. S. has contracted a lawyer, the other side did the same. In H. S. emphasized that he wanted to possible to achieve during the lifetime of an amicable agreement. Such is not, however, even after over two years of correspondence in point of view.
but What those who are responsible for the Change in the regulations of the KV to have the pension Fund and the present case is triggered? Bruno Schmid, President of the KV Luzern and at the time Vice-President of the Board of Trustees of the KV-pension Fund, does not want to speak publicly. He emphasized, however, that the pension Fund Foundation is, as before, to a call ready.
Created: 03.11.2019, 17:52 PM