According to the Vereniging Sociale Verhaal, who came to the aid of the nineteen in the proceedings against Yarden, the way is clear for extensive proceedings against the insurer.
The nineteen property insurance policyholders are entitled to their original parts from this package for a full funeral or cremation.
In the middle of last year, Yarden informed the 390,000 customers with this policy that they would no longer be able to meet the originally promised obligations from January 1 of this year, even though the customers had paid premiums for them.
The package that Yarden was offering meant that the insured’s next of kin would receive a limited package for cremation or funeral. The rest of the funeral was for her own account.
The consumer association immediately appealed. Yarden referred to a separate rule in the policy called the en-block clause. This allows insurers to suddenly adjust the terms for a large group.
Complaints institute for the financial sector Kifid recently supported the insurer in maximizing this package: Yarden was able to invoke the clause in the policy.
The nineteen Yarden customers who disagreed heard from the judge this week that this argument for natural parcel policy is explicitly wrong. This type of policy is designed to protect consumers from additional payments.
Yarden’s financial problems were caused by his own actions, the judge said. “That can only be blamed on Yarden.”
In a response to the ANP, the Consumentenbond Claimservice declares that the judgment applies to all 390,000 policyholders.
The funeral insurance posted a response on its website: “Yarden regrets the verdict.” She says she will investigate the verdict further. Yarden may look legally higher in the long-term issue.
Listen to ours new podcast “More purchasing power? Forget it’