I 2022 51 — Insured Denied Accident Benefits Due to Intentional Safety Regulation Breach
Zusammenfassung (Sachverhalt & Erwägungen)
KI-strukturiertThe appellant, insured under accident insurance, was injured in a fall from a ladder in the spring of the relevant year, suffering a skull base fracture and concussion, but the insurer denied the payment of accident benefits, arguing that the claimed inability to work was not medically established and the appellant's actions constituted an intentional breach of safety regulations regarding ladder usage. The court upheld the denial, reasoning that while the factual occurrence of the accident was not disputed, the appellant's failure to adhere to established safety rules concerning the proper setup and use of a ladder constituted a significant, intentional breach of care, which justified the insurer's decision to refuse benefits based on the terms of the policy regarding intentional non-compliance with safety regulations.
Leitsatz / Regeste
KI-strukturiertVolltext des Entscheids — I 2022 51
\n \n \n \n \n
\n\n| | | |\n I 2022 51 |\n |\n \n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n
\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 15. Mai 2023 |\n \n\n
\n \n \n \n \n
\n\n| | | |\n Besetzung |\n Dr.iur. Vital Zehnder, Vizepräsident |\n \n|\n |\n Dr.med. Bernhard Zumsteg, Richter Dr.med. Urs Gössi, Richter |\n \n|\n |\n MLaw Manuel Gamma, Gerichtsschreiber |\n \n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n
\n\n| | | |\n Parteien |\n A.________, \n Beschwerdeführer, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt MLaw B.________, |\n \n|\n |\n gegen |\n \n|\n |\n C.________ AG, \n Vorinstanz, |\n \n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n
\n\n| | | |\n Gegenstand |\n Unfallversicherung (Leistungen) |\n \n\n
\n \n Sachverhalt: