Prozess: BGH stärkt Kläger im Streit um Rechtsschutz bei möglichen Impfschäden

At the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Germany, a man successfully achieved a breakthrough in his legal battle against his legal protection insurance company over coverage for seeking compensation from a vaccine manufacturer for alleged COVID-19 vaccine injuries. The insurance company refused to provide coverage, arguing that due to the positive benefit-risk ratio of the vaccine, there were insufficient prospects of success.

The BGH overturned this decision, citing that a prior Düsseldorf ruling should not have been dismissed. The plaintiff received three COVID-19 vaccinations in 2021 and has since been suffering from an autoimmune weakness, claiming that the vaccine caused his condition. He sought damages from the vaccine manufacturer. His legal protection insurance company, however, would not agree to cover the costs, citing insufficient chances of success.

Previous instances had denied coverage claims. The lower courts had dismissed his claim for coverage in the preliminary stages, following the insurer's assessment that legal proceedings against the manufacturer had little chance of success. The court emphasized that a negative benefit-risk ratio of the vaccine, which is crucial in determining liability in damage claims, should not have been a basis for dismissing the case.

The BGH ordered the case back to Düsseldorf for a new trial, stating that no overly high success expectations should be imposed. At the time of the coverage denial in June 2023, there were still no legal decisions regarding the manufacturer's liability for the vaccine administered to the plaintiff. The BGH had previously ruled in March of 2023 on claims against vaccine manufacturers, stating that the manufacturer might be obligated to provide the plaintiff, who has been deaf in one ear since her COVID-19 vaccination, with comprehensive information about the vaccine's effects and side effects.

However, the court left open the question of whether the woman should be entitled to compensation. The BGH will now have to determine if the case meets its requirements.