A pro­vi­si­on in the insu­rance con­di­ti­ons of a busi­ness clo­sure insu­rance poli­cy (here Clau­se 3.4 of the BBSG 19 “Con­di­ti­ons for Busi­ness Clo­sure Com­pre­hen­si­ve Insu­rance Com­mer­cial,” which sta­tes that repor­ta­ble dise­a­ses and patho­gens, within the mea­ning of these con­di­ti­ons, are the dise­a­ses and patho­gens spe­ci­fi­cal­ly men­tio­ned in §§ 6 and 7 of the Infec­tion Pro­tec­tion Act (IfSG), is unclear within the mea­ning of § 305c para. 2 of the Ger­man Civil Code (BGB). It can lead the avera­ge poli­cy­hol­der to under­stand that the timing of the occur­rence of the insu­red event is decisi­ve.

Accor­ding to the pro­vi­si­ons in Clau­ses 3.1 and 3.4 of the BBSG 19, the occur­rence of the insu­red event requi­res the spe­ci­fic naming of the dise­a­se or patho­gen in §§ 6 and 7 of the Infec­tion Pro­tec­tion Act (IfSG) at the time of the busi­ness clo­sure. An expan­si­on of the report­ing requi­re­ment for dise­a­ses and patho­gens not spe­ci­fi­cal­ly named in these regu­la­ti­ons through a legal ordi­nan­ce issued based on § 15 para. 1 of the IfSG is not suf­fi­ci­ent.