Cancellation of a Unit-Linked Life Insurance Policy

Jun 4, 2026 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) adjudicated the matter concerning the rescission of a life insurance contract.

Unit-linked life insurance with a capital guarantee

The claimant obtained a unit-linked life insurance policy from the defendant’s legal predecessor in 2003, which began on 1 November 2003 and was set to end on 1 November 2023. The application for insurance contained several provisions, including a capital guarantee.

The defendant’s legal predecessor established the life insurance policy on a rolling basis, resulting in the client’s investment being allocated to a different fund annually. In 2017, the defendant formally notified the claimant by letter regarding the dissolution of the guarantee fund and the resulting termination of the guarantee. Subsequently, in 2018, the defendant provided information to the claimant about the new fund where the claimant’s investment would be placed.

OGH ruled against rescission of the contract

The claimant pursued rescission of the life insurance contract on the basis of unjust enrichment. He asserted entitlement to a right of withdrawal pursuant to Sections 5b and 165a of the Austrian Insurance Contracts Act (Versicherungsvertragsgesetz, VersVG). Additionally, he argued that the guarantee clause lacked transparency.

Dismissal of life insurance policyholder’s rescission claim confirmed

No amendment to the contract was effected by the two letters from 2017 and 2018. Even if such an amendment had occurred, it would not have conferred any benefit upon the claimant. The claimant was not simply seeking withdrawal in relation to a contractual amendment; rather, the claimant pursued rescission of the entire life insurance contract executed in 2003 based on the principles of unjust enrichment.

The principal aim of the right of withdrawal is to safeguard policyholders against impulsive decisions. This right enables policyholders to withdraw from contractual agreements without the need to provide justification, rendering the underlying motive for withdrawal immaterial. If a contractual amendment was implemented in 2017 or 2018, the claimant may be entitled to exercise the right of withdrawal from said amendment should there have been insufficient or inaccurate notification regarding this right during the amendment process. Nevertheless, any right of withdrawal at this stage, even following a contract modification, does not substantiate the rescission of the entire contract related to the present claim.

Eliminating the clause may impact the level of guaranteed capital; however, it would not compromise the enforceability of the contract.

OGH 7 Ob 156/25d (15 April 2026)