Product Specification#
Status: Draft, 2026-08-29 (access date for every citation: 2026-08-29).
Scope note. This is a standardized composite specification assembled for reference
liability cash-flow modeling of a German selbständige Berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung (SBU) —
the standalone occupational-disability contract that pays a monthly BU-Rente for as long as the
insured is berufsunfähig, waives the premium for the same period (Beitragsbefreiung), and pays
nothing at all if the insured stays able to work. It does not describe any single insurer’s
product, and it is not a quotation from one. Facts carrying a source tag — [S#] (primary product
documents: Musterbedingungen, Allgemeine Versicherungsbedingungen, Tarifbestimmungen,
Produktinformationsblätter, Berufsgruppenverzeichnisse) and [R#] (product-specific
regulatory and actuarial references), both numbered per
_research/berufsunfaehigkeit.md and resolved in sources.md (same directory; numbering frozen,
never renumbered), and [REG-R#] (the cross-product reference library
references/regulatory-and-actuarial-references.md, whose own R-numbering is distinct) — name the
document the claim must be checked against. std marks a standardization introduced for the
reference implementation, each with a rationale and, where the research file recorded one, the
observed range; unverified marks a claim no retrieved document corroborates.
Read this before any number below. This specification was drafted with nothing retrieved.
Direct HTTP egress was refused by an organisation network policy for every relevant host —
gesetze-im-internet.de, bafin.de, gdv.de, aktuar.de, deutsche-rentenversicherung.de,
bundesfinanzministerium.de — and the session’s WebSearch budget was exhausted before this
product was reached, so the first draft rested on the authoring model’s own knowledge of German
insurance law and market practice, disciplined by std and unverified tags rather than by a
document. That policy has since been lifted and the citations were re-verified against the primary
documents. On 2026-08-30 the statutes and statutory instruments this product turns on were read as
the canonical XML gesetze-im-internet publishes for each law, each law’s amendment status (Stand)
recorded on its entry; the GDV Musterbedingungen for the SBU, the BUZ and the BU-with-AU variant
and five carrier document sets were retrieved as PDFs and read. Of the 43 entries in
sources.md, 26 now answer Retrieved: yes — twenty-five outright, and [S12] for three of the
documents it names out of eighteen carriers — and 17 still answer no: 60 % of this product’s
entries retrieved.
The re-verification changed things, and the corrections are marked where they fall: the six
months belongs to the Sechs-Monats-Fiktion and not to the Prognosezeitraum, which the GDV model
conditions leave blank [S1] [S12]; § 177 VVG extends the BU rules only to cover of a dauerhafte
impairment R6; § 161 VVG’s three-year suicide window is a death-cover rule the market’s AVB do not
apply to self-inflicted impairment at all R11; and the drafted claim that no German insurer
discloses its BU costs was wrong — VVG-InfoV § 2 requires the disclosure in euro R12, and a
carrier’s own AVB points the customer to it [S6]. Read a claim as sound where its entry says
Retrieved: yes and as provisional where it does not: there a delib citation is still a
pointer, not a certificate, naming the instrument a claim should be checked against without
asserting that anyone read it. What stayed out of reach is overwhelmingly price and level — no
rate card, no Berufsgruppenverzeichnis, no DAV table, no Produktinformationsblatt — so the
mechanics of the German BU contract are set out here from documents that were read, while the
levels are std with a stated construction or unverified with a warning, and there is not
one invented [S#] figure anywhere in this file.
Scope boundaries. The Berufsunfähigkeits-Zusatzversicherung (BUZ) — the same cover written as a rider on a Renten-, Kapitallebens- or Basisrentenversicherung [S2] — carries an identical liability and is described here as a wrapper variant, not modelled separately. The Erwerbsunfähigkeitsversicherung, the Grundfähigkeitsversicherung, dread-disease cover, Krankentagegeld, the Pflegerentenversicherung (delib product 10) and BU inside betriebliche Altersversorgung or Gruppenversicherung are different products, outside this file.
Product overview and market role#
A German SBU is life-assurance business, written by a Lebensversicherungsunternehmen and governed by §§ 172–177 VVG for its own mechanics and, through the cross-reference in § 176, by the general life provisions §§ 150–170 VVG for everything else R1 R5 REG-R29. It is neither health nor accident business, even though its trigger is a health event, and it carries no premium tax — § 4 Abs. 1 Nr. 5 Buchst. b VersStG exempts a premium for benefits payable “im Fall der Krankheit, der Pflegebedürftigkeit, der Berufs- oder der Erwerbsunfähigkeit” where they serve the insured’s or her relatives’ provision R31. Structurally it is a pure risk contract with a levelling reserve: it returns nothing if the insured stays healthy, and the level Bruttobeitrag charged against an Invalidisierungswahrscheinlichkeit that rises far more steeply with age than mortality does builds a Deckungsrückstellung whose purpose is to keep the gross premium level, not to accumulate value R9. A carrier’s own AVB puts the size of it plainly: “Die Bildung eines Kapitals ist kein Vertragszweck Ihrer Versicherung … Die für die Bildung des Deckungskapitals zur Verfügung stehenden Beitragsteile sind gemessen an den gezahlten Beiträgen während der gesamten Vertragslaufzeit sehr gering. Mit Ablauf der Versicherung ist das Deckungskapital deswegen stets wieder völlig aufgebraucht” [S6]. This corrects an earlier statement in this document that the contract carries a “substantial” or “large” risk reserve. The reserve is real, it is why the contract has a Rückkaufswert and a Beitragsfreistellung right at all, and it is small.
Why the product exists at all is a matter of statute. The 2001 pension reform closed the
statutory Berufsunfähigkeitsrente to everyone born on or after 2 January 1961; § 240 Abs. 1
SGB VI preserves it only for insured persons “vor dem 2. Januar 1961 geboren” R25. What remains for the post-1960
population is the Erwerbsminderungsrente of § 43 SGB VI R24, tested against the general
labour market in hours a day rather than against the insured’s own occupation — volle
Erwerbsminderung below three hours a day, teilweise between three and six, both needing the
allgemeine Wartezeit plus three years of compulsory contributions in the five years before onset
(§ 43 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 and 3, Abs. 2 Nr. 2 and 3 SGB VI), and both assessed without regard to the state
of the labour market (Abs. 3). A surgeon who loses the use of a hand cannot operate but can answer a telephone for six
hours a day: fully berufsunfähig, not at all erwerbsgemindert. The private SBU is the
replacement for the cover the state withdrew, and it is paid in addition to the statutory
pension rather than offset against it — offsetting designs exist at the margin [unverified] and
are not modelled.
Market size. The GDV publishes the industry aggregates R20. An order of magnitude often
quoted is roughly 17 million BU contracts in force, standalone and rider forms together, against
a working population of about 45 million [unverified] on both figures and the year — cover reaches
well under half the people who need it, which is the market’s own framing of the product. The GDV
taxonomy does not help: rider BU falls under Zusatzversicherungen while the selbständige form is
not a separate line at all, so the SBU/BUZ split of German new business is not established
REG-R53. For scale, German life premium income (life insurers, Pensionskassen and
Pensionsfonds) was €94.6 bn in 2024 on 80.3 million contracts, down 1.4 % REG-R53.
What the market competes on. The core definition is close to uniform, because it descends from the GDV’s unverbindliche Musterbedingungen — model conditions expressly non-binding, since binding recommended conditions would be a cartel; the current pair is MB BUV 22 and MB BUZ 22 of 15 November 2022, succeeding a set dated 28 April 2021 [S1] [S2] REG-R37. Competition runs through four other channels: the occupational classification, the dominant price driver and not comparable between carriers; the AU-Klausel; the breadth of the Nachversicherungsgarantie; and the stability of the Zahlbeitrag relative to the guaranteed Bruttobeitrag, the product’s principal consumer risk R21 R22 R23. The hierarchy the product sits in, broadest trigger first, is Berufsunfähigkeit (last occupation, 50 %) → Grundfähigkeitsversicherung → Erwerbsunfähigkeit (any occupation) → statutory Erwerbsminderungsrente R24: BU is the broadest and most expensive, and the one sold first.
Representative specification#
The composite is built from the market position each mechanic occupies, not from one carrier’s paper. Five carrier wordings were read for the provenance pass of 2026-08-30 — Alte Leipziger, NÜRNBERGER, VOLKSWOHL BUND, Debeka and CosmosDirekt [S4] [S6] [S9] [S12] — and where a clause or a cap is now attributed to one of them the tag says which. No price was obtained from any of them, so no level in the composite comes from a carrier. Eighteen named German life insurers write this product [S3]–[S12]; the file names them and attributes no premium, factor or rate to any of them. The anchor model cell is defined in the last row of the first table and argued in footnote (6).
Product identity and issue rules#
Parameter |
Representative value |
Basis |
|---|---|---|
Design type |
Individual, single-life, standalone selbständige Berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung; life-assurance business under §§ 172–177 VVG; participating through Beitragsverrechnung only; no unit account. The versicherte Person and the Versicherungsnehmer are usually but not necessarily the same |
|
Legal wrapper |
Standalone contract. The rider form (BUZ) on a Renten-, Kapitallebens- or Basisrentenversicherung is the equally common alternative and carries the identical liability |
[S1]; [S2]; choice std (1) |
Premium form (model-point parameter) |
(i) |
(i) [S1] [S3]–[S12]; (ii) [S1] [S4] [S5]; escalation levels std (2) |
Entry ages |
15 (pupils) to 50; 25–35 is the mass market |
[S1] [S4]–[S12] |
Versicherungsdauer ends |
At the agreed Endalter: 67 representative, 65 the common alternative, 60/62/63 sold as budget options |
[S1] [S3]–[S12] |
Leistungsdauer ends |
At the Leistungsendalter, equal to the Endalter in the market standard; a shorter Leistungsdauer is a cheaper minority design |
[S1] |
Age basis |
Eintrittsalter on an age-last-birthday basis, advancing at the policy anniversary |
std (5) |
BU-Rente |
1 500 € per month; 1 000 – 2 000 € the retail band, higher for high earners. The Angemessenheitsgrenze caps the insurable BU-Rente at 60–70 % of gross income, or about 80 % of net |
|
Residence, scope, currency |
German residence at application; cover worldwide, with notification duties for long stays abroad; EUR |
[S1] |
Anchor model cell |
Entry age 30, occupational class BG1 (Bürotätigkeit), BU-Rente 1 500 €/month, Endalter and Leistungsendalter 67, Karenzzeit 0, Leistungsdynamik 2 % p.a., no Beitragsdynamik, monthly payment, Zahlbeitrag = 0,70 × Bruttobeitrag, Wiedereingliederungshilfe 6 monthly Renten |
std (6) |
Footnotes to std rows:
Wrapper is a tax and packaging variable, not a liability one. The BU risk, the definition, the Leistungsprüfung, the Nachprüfung and the Beitragsbefreiung are identical in the two forms [S1] [S2]. Two things differ: in a BUZ the Beitragsbefreiung waives the whole premium of the host contract, which is the rider form’s main attraction [S2]; and inside a Basisrente the whole premium becomes deductible while the BU-Rente becomes fully taxable R27 R28. The composite takes the standalone form because it isolates the BU liability from a savings chassis delib already models four times over, and because the standalone form’s cash flows are the rider’s cash flows plus nothing.
Both premium forms are real German designs. The base sale is a level Bruttobeitrag guaranteed for the term. The Beitragsdynamik option escalates premium and insured BU-Rente together each year, commonly at 3 % or 5 %, menus recalled from 1 % to 10 %, lapsing permanently if two or three consecutive increases are declined
[unverified]on every figure. The composite ships the level form as the base and carriesdynamikat 3 % std, the lower of the two commonly quoted rates.Entry-age envelopes could not be compared carrier by carrier. The established shape is that pupils and students are insurable, classified by the occupation trained for — the market’s principal argument for buying young — and that entry closes around 50
[unverified].The two ages are separate columns because they are separate contractual terms. The Versicherungsdauer is the period in which a BU may incept and be covered; the Leistungsdauer the period over which benefit is paid. In the market standard both end at the same Endalter [S1]; where they differ the Leistungsdauer is the shorter
[unverified]. A model carrying one age cannot express that design at all, so the composite carries both and sets them equal in eleven of its thirteen model points. 67 rather than 65 because 67 is the statutory retirement age for cohorts born from 1964[unverified]and anything earlier leaves a gap between the end of the BU-Rente and the start of the old-age pension [S16].German practice uses an Eintrittsalter convention rather than an age-nearest one; the rounding rule varies by carrier and none of the retrieved wordings states one, so the composite uses age last birthday advancing at the policy anniversary std — worth at most one year of the inception curve.
The anchor is the German market’s central sale. Entry age 30 is inside the 25–35 mass market; a 37-year term to 67 exercises the entire inception curve including the expensive last decade that dominates the liability; an office class keeps the premium where a reader can sanity-check it against published price points; and 1 500 € a month is the level the consumer press illustrates with, above the recalled 1 000–1 200 € average new-business BU-Rente because that average is itself evidence of underinsurance against the market’s own 70–80 %-of-net advice R22 [S15] [S16]
[unverified]. The Leistungsdynamik of 2 % is the midpoint of the recalled 1–3 % menu std, carried in the base run because a BU model without in-claim escalation misses the product’s dominant long-duration sensitivity.
Benefit provisions#
Parameter |
Representative value |
Basis |
|---|---|---|
Principal benefit |
The agreed monthly BU-Rente, paid monthly in advance for as long as the insured is berufsunfähig, to the Leistungsendalter |
[S1] R1 |
Benefit trigger |
Inability, as a consequence of Krankheit, Körperverletzung or more than age-appropriate Kräfteverfall, to exercise the last occupation actually exercised, as it was arranged before the impairment, to at least 50 %, prospectively on a lasting basis |
R1 for the statutory limbs, which say only “ganz oder teilweise voraussichtlich auf Dauer”; the 50 % and the prognosis period are AVB conventions, left blank in the GDV model conditions [S1] and filled by each carrier [S12] |
Prognosezeitraum |
The period over which the inability must be expected to last. It is not six months as a matter of course: the model conditions leave it blank subject only to the statutory Dauerhaftigkeit, one large carrier requires “voraussichtlich auf Dauer (mindestens 3 Jahre)”, and a shortened Prognosezeitraum is sold as a tier upgrade rather than being standard |
[S1] [S12] |
Degree of benefit |
All-or-nothing at 50 %. At 50 % or more the full BU-Rente is payable; at 49 %, nothing — “Bei einem geringeren Grad der Berufsunfähigkeit besteht kein Anspruch auf eine Leistung” [S12]. A second and distinct route is the Sechs-Monats-Fiktion: six months of actual continuous inability to that degree, after which “gilt die Fortdauer dieses Zustandes als Berufsunfähigkeit” with no prognosis at all |
[S1] [S12] REG-R37; Staffelregelung and “Teil-BU” variants |
Retroactivity |
The claim arises “mit Ablauf des Monats, in dem die Berufsunfähigkeit eingetreten ist” [S1], so benefit runs from onset (after any Karenzzeit), not from the decision date; premiums are paid in full until the decision and refunded on acknowledgement. Under the Fiktion limb the model conditions treat only the continuation of the state as BU, and record that paying retroactively from an earlier date requires the conditions to be varied — full retroactivity is a carrier choice, not the model default |
[S1] |
Beitragsbefreiung |
Full waiver of the premium while the BU-Rente is in payment. Not an option — part of the core cover in every German BU contract |
[S1] [S2] |
Karenzzeit |
0 months representative. A Karenzzeit lowers the premium and defers the pension only — “Die Karenzzeit gilt nur für die Rente”; the Beitragsbefreiung starts from the month after BU begins regardless, the insured must be BU throughout it and still at its end, and a served Karenzzeit is credited on a recurrence from the same cause within 24 months [S4] [S9]. The menu of durations lives in the Tarifbestimmungen, which were not retrieved; 0 / 3 / 6 / 12 / 18 / 24 is recalled |
[S1] [S4] [S9]; choice std (10) |
Leistungsdynamik |
2 % a year, applied on each anniversary of the start of benefit, to the BU-Rente in payment |
recalled menu 1 % / 2 % / 3 %, some index-linked |
Wiedereingliederungshilfe |
A one-off lump of 6 monthly BU-Renten on a return to work |
recalled range 3 – 12 monthly Renten |
End of benefit |
At the Leistungsendalter; on death; or on a Nachprüfung termination, followed by the statutory three-month run-off |
|
Death, maturity and expiry benefits |
None in the modelled product, and none in the GDV model conditions: an SBU pays nothing on death, before or during a claim; survival to the Endalter returns nothing; and a claim in payment at the Leistungsendalter stops with no commutation, no residual value and no conversion [S1]. This is not universal. One retrieved carrier’s AVB grants a Schlusszahlung at expiry of the Versicherungsdauer, set “in Prozent der bis dahin tatsächlich gezahlten Tarifbeiträge”, where no BU arose, and Zinsüberschussanteile during a claim converted into a Bonusrente [S12]; another offers a Bonusrente as the alternative to the Beitragsverrechnung [S6]. Both are surplus applications, not guarantees, and neither is modelled |
[S1]; carrier variants [S6] [S12] |
Other assistance benefits |
Umorganisationshilfe, Reha-Hilfe, Soforthilfe set off against the eventual benefit, Pflege add-ons |
[S1] [S5] [S8] |
The Karenzzeit is an option, not a feature, and the standard sale does not carry one. It is taken to cut the premium, typically by a buyer with employer sick pay or a professional scheme covering the first period [S16]. The composite therefore runs at 0 and carries
karenz_monthsas a model-point column, with two model points exercising 3, 6 and 12. The Karenzzeit is not the six-month prognosis period, and the two are constantly confused: the prognosis is part of the definition of BU, the Karenzzeit a deferment of payment on a BU that is already established.Only the Wiedereingliederungshilfe is both common enough to be representative and simple enough to attach to a transition the model already carries; the rest are discretionary, small, or duplicate a benefit already modelled.
Underwriting and rating#
Parameter |
Representative value |
Basis |
|---|---|---|
Dominant rating factor |
Occupation, ahead of age and far ahead of anything else — a direct consequence of the definition, since the insured event is inability to do this job |
[S6] R1 |
Berufsgruppen per carrier |
4 to 6 typical; 3 at some direct writers, 10 or more at specialists. Nothing retrieved supports this. The NÜRNBERGER AVB was read in full for the 2026-08-30 pass and never uses the word Berufsgruppe; the classification lives in a Berufsgruppenverzeichnis that is not published at a public address, and none of the five carrier wordings read states a class count |
[S6] [S12] |
Classification list |
Each insurer maintains its own Berufsgruppenverzeichnis mapping named occupations to classes. The classes are not comparable between carriers — an occupation in class 2 at one insurer may be class 3 at another, which is precisely why the comparison portals exist |
[S6] [S15] |
Composite classification |
Five classes: BG1 academic and pure office; BG2 qualified commercial and technical; BG3 skilled trades with light physical content; BG4 skilled manual trades; BG5 heavy manual, hazardous and outdoor |
shape |
Occupational factors |
BG1 1,00; BG2 1,40; BG3 2,10; BG4 3,00; BG5 4,50, applied multiplicatively to the Invalidisierungswahrscheinlichkeit |
recalled manual/office premium ratio 2× – 4×, centred near 3×, and 4× – 6× for the heaviest insurable trades |
Declined occupations, academic status |
Roofers, scaffolders, some care roles, professional drivers and some artistic professions are declined outright by many carriers, or offered only with a Karenzzeit, a reduced Endalter or a limited Leistungsdauer. Academic status moves the classification independently of the job title |
[S6] [S12] |
Sex |
May not be a rating factor. Unisex pricing has been compulsory for new contracts since 21 December 2012, following Test-Achats (C-236/09, 1 March 2011) and the repeal of § 20 Abs. 2 Satz 1 AGG |
|
Smoker status |
Not systematically a rating factor in BU, unlike Risikolebensversicherung; where it appears its effect is far smaller than the occupational factor |
|
Gesundheitsprüfung |
Health questions over defined look-back windows — recalled as five years outpatient, ten inpatient and for psychotherapy — plus height and weight, current complaints, planned treatments, tobacco use and existing or refused disability cover; a medical report above an insured BU-Rente of the order of 18 000 – 30 000 € a year. Psychiatric and musculoskeletal history are the two decisive ones, which is exactly where the claims come from |
[S1] [S16] R22 |
Underwriting outcomes |
Acceptance at Normaltarif; acceptance with a Risikozuschlag, commonly 25 % – 100 %; acceptance with an Ausschlussklausel excluding a named condition or body region (spine, knee, psyche are the classic three); Zurückstellung; Ablehnung |
[S1] |
Proportion not accepted on standard terms |
A quarter to a third — which is why the Risikovoranfrage exists: an anonymised pre-enquiry through a broker, so a decline is never recorded against the applicant in the industry’s Hinweis- und Informationssystem (HIS) |
[S15] [S16] R7 |
Vorvertragliche Anzeigepflicht |
§ 19 VVG: disclosure of risk circumstances the insurer asked about in Textform; on breach, Rücktritt, contract amendment, Kündigung or Anfechtung graded by fault. The remedies are extinguished by § 21 Abs. 3 VVG — not by § 19 — after five years, “zehn Jahre” where the duty was breached intentionally or fraudulently, and not for claims that arose inside the period. § 21 Abs. 1 also gives the insurer one month from learning of the breach to act |
|
Anerkennungsquote |
About 75 % – 80 % of decided claims accepted, roughly half of the declines because the 50 % degree is not reached |
A five-class cut with a 1,00 / 3,00 anchor. The corpus supports the shape of a German Berufsgruppenverzeichnis — academic and office at the top, heavy manual at the bottom — and a manual-to-office premium ratio recalled at 2× to 4×, centred near 3×. It supports no carrier’s class count and no factor. Five classes sits inside the recalled 4–6 band while leaving room for the heaviest insurable trades; BG1 at 1,00 and BG4 at 3,00 are the research file’s own representative anchors, and BG2, BG3 and BG5 are interpolated on a roughly geometric progression. These are constructions inside an argued range, not sourced figures. The mechanic they implement — one base inception table with multiplicative occupational loadings — is how German BU pricing works [S6], and that much is not a construction.
The Anerkennungsquote enters as an acceptance factor of 0,80 std on the inception rate, applied to the transition rather than to the benefit, because a declined claim generates no annuity at all rather than a smaller one. The interaction with the decrement table is a trap: the shipped inception proxy is gross of declinature by construction, so the factor belongs on top of it, and a user substituting a table already net of declinature must set it to 1,00 or the effect is counted twice REG-R53.
Charges#
No German insurer publishes the charge structure of a BU tariff, and there is no Effektivkosten disclosure for a pure risk product — the reduction-in-yield figure that makes delib’s savings products transparent has no meaning where there is no yield R12 [S14] REG-R31. Everything below is therefore std or a statutory ceiling.
Parameter |
Representative value |
Basis |
|---|---|---|
Abschluss- und Vertriebskosten |
2,5 % of the Beitragssumme, charged at inception. § 4 DeckRV caps the Zillmersatz at 25 ‰ (2,5 %) of the Beitragssumme, cut from 40 ‰ with effect from 1 January 2015 by the LVRG; the rate in use at conclusion applies for the whole term |
|
Verwaltungskosten, proportional |
9 % of the Bruttobeitrag, for the whole term |
std (15) |
Verwaltungskosten, flat |
18 € per policy per year, level in euro, not inflated |
std (15) |
Leistungsbearbeitungskosten, assessment |
800 € per claim inception |
std (16) |
Leistungsbearbeitungskosten, maintenance |
12 € per month a claim is in payment |
std (16) |
Expense inflation, commission |
No inflation — German loadings are fixed at inception for the term. Commission is not separately modelled; it sits inside the Abschluss- und Vertriebskosten line, which is the German charge taxonomy |
std (14) (15) |
The only sourced ceiling in the entire charge structure is the Höchstzillmersatz, and it is now sourced three times over: DeckRV § 4 Abs. 1 — “Der Zillmersatz darf 25 Promille der Summe aller Prämien nicht überschreiten” R13 — and two carrier AVB that state it customer-facing as 2,5 % of the premiums payable over the term [S1] [S6]. The base is the sum of all premiums, which settles the three renderings the reference library records REG-R16, and § 4 Abs. 4 fixes the rate used at conclusion for the whole term. The composite sits at the cap: German level-premium risk business generally does, and a cap is at least a sourced ceiling. The Beitragssumme over 37 years is large even though the annual premium is modest, so this is the contract’s biggest expense item.
Levels are round-number constructions sized so first-year outgo is of the same order as first-year premium income, which is the shape a level-premium risk product has. Holding the flat component level in euro rather than inflating it is the German practice: a Verwaltungskostenzuschlag is fixed in the tariff at conclusion, not indexed.
Leistungsbearbeitungskosten are the charge a modeller from a term-life background will forget, and here they are material. A BU claim is expensive to assess — medical reports, an analysis of the occupation as actually exercised, for the self-employed an analysis of the business, sometimes litigation — and expensive to maintain, because the Nachprüfung recurs annually or biennially R21. A one-off assessment cost plus a recurring per-month-in-payment cost is the minimum structure reflecting that; both levels are constructions.
Termination and values#
Parameter |
Representative value |
Basis |
|---|---|---|
Rückkaufswert |
Exists, and is small. § 169 VVG applies through § 176 and only entsprechend: § 169 Abs. 1 confers the right where “der Eintritt der Verpflichtung des Versicherers gewiss ist”, which a pure SBU is not, so it arrives through the cross-reference and its reservation R5 R9. The AVB pay it expressly — “den Rückkaufswert entsprechend § 169 des Versicherungsvertragsgesetzes (VVG)” [S1] — and VVG-InfoV § 2 requires the Rückkaufswerte to be disclosed for a BU contract R12. The mechanics are confirmed: Deckungsrückstellung on recognised actuarial principles, acquisition and distribution costs spread over at least five years for the Mindestrückkaufswert, and an Abzug only “wenn er vereinbart, beziffert und angemessen ist”, never for unamortised acquisition costs. One retrieved carrier takes no deduction at all. The magnitude is the point: the parts of the premium available to build the capital are, in a carrier’s own words, “sehr gering” against premiums paid, and the capital is exhausted by expiry [S6] |
|
Beitragsfreistellung |
A right “jederzeit für den Schluss der laufenden Versicherungsperiode” under § 165 Abs. 1 VVG through § 176, producing a beitragsfreie BU-Rente computed on the premium basis and stated in the contract for each policy year; below the agreed Mindestversicherungsleistung the contract is instead terminated against the Rückkaufswert. One retrieved carrier sets that minimum at 100,00 EUR of monthly pension [S6]. It is small, and the conditions say why: “wegen der benötigten Risikobeiträge gemessen an den gezahlten Beiträgen keine oder nur geringe Mittel” are available even in later years [S1]. It is nonetheless the option consumer advice recommends over lapse |
|
What the model does with both |
Neither is modelled as a cash flow. A lapse removes the policy from the in-force count and pays nothing |
scope std (17) |
Effect of a lapse |
Cover ends. Once health has changed the cover cannot be replaced, which makes BU lapse both low and strongly selective |
[S16]; selection not modelled — see the technical notes’ model risks |
Non-payment path |
German lapse is not instantaneous: due date → qualifizierte Mahnung in Textform with an itemised statement and a two-week minimum period → expiry; and § 166 VVG overrides the general § 38 consequence for life business, so cover converts to prämienfrei rather than simply ceasing |
|
Widerruf, termination of right |
30-day Widerruf for a life-assurance contract, absorbed into the first-year lapse rate std. Rights terminate at the Endalter, on death and on lapse |
REG-R23 [S1] |
Verlängerungsoption |
The right to extend the Versicherungs- and Leistungsdauer — 63 → 65, 65 → 67 — without renewed underwriting, exercisable in a window before the original Endalter. The option exists at carrier level (a Verlängerungsgarantie has its own section in one retrieved AVB [S9]); the ages and the window are in the Tarifbestimmungen, which were not retrieved, so they stay |
[S1] [S4] [S9]; modelled as a model-point Endalter, not as a dynamic option |
A gross benefit-and-premium projection has no place to put a surrender value, and inventing one would be worse than omitting it: the Rückkaufswert is the release of a reserve this model deliberately does not compute. The omission is a scope limitation stated here rather than left to be discovered, and its direction is known — a model paying nothing on lapse overstates net cash flow by the values it never pays and understates it by the reserve it never releases. The two-week Mahnung period likewise means a monthly model applying lapse in the month of the missed premium is early by at least a month REG-R30; the composite applies lapse at end of month and accepts the offset.
Contractual mechanics#
One subsection per operative rule: what the rule says, and what it does to the contract.
The definition of Berufsunfähigkeit — § 172 VVG#
The rule. A person is berufsunfähig who, as a consequence of Krankheit, Körperverletzung or more than age-appropriate Kräfteverfall, is prospectively permanently (voraussichtlich auf Dauer) unable, wholly or in part, to exercise the occupation last actually exercised, as it was arranged before the impairment R1 REG-R29.
What it does. Four things, all model-relevant. (1) The reference occupation is the last one actually exercised — not the trained occupation, not an average one, and emphatically not “any occupation”: a trained lawyer working as a warehouse supervisor is tested against warehouse supervision. That is why the German trigger is so much broader than an any-occupation definition, and why the price is so much more sensitive to the insured’s actual job than to anything else about them. (2) It is taken as actually arranged, so the concrete duties, hours and physical demands of this insured’s own post are the yardstick and two people with the same job title can face different tests. (3) The cause must be medical: loss of the job, loss of a licence for non-medical reasons and economic inability to find work are not BU, with the single contractual exception of the Infektionsklausel. (4) Prospectively permanent — the statute puts no number on it, and the market does.
§ 172 Abs. 3 permits, but does not imply, the abstrakte Verweisung R1. Absent an express agreement the insurer may not refer the insured to an occupation she does not actually exercise.
The six-month prognosis and the 50 % threshold#
The rule. The insured is berufsunfähig if, as a consequence of one of the § 172 causes, each to be demonstrated medically, she is prospectively for at least six months continuously unable to exercise her last occupation as it was arranged, to at least 50 % [S1].
What it does — and a correction that matters. Neither the six-month period nor the 50 % threshold is in § 172 VVG. Both are contractual standards carried in the AVB and near-uniform because they descend from the GDV model text; they concretise the statutory words voraussichtlich auf Dauer and ganz oder teilweise [S1] REG-R37. A document attributing them to the statute is wrong. The 50 % is all-or-nothing — at 50 % the full BU-Rente, at 49 % nothing — so the modelled object is the incidence of a ≥ 50 % incapacity, not a severity distribution. Measurement is on working time, on the share of the occupation’s essential tasks still performable, or on both, and the burden of proof on the initial claim is on the insured R21.
There are two routes to a claim, and they are two separate clauses of the AVB with two different periods. The prognosis route (§ 2 Abs. 1): a doctor certifies that the 50 % inability is expected to last for the contractual Prognosezeitraum, and benefit is due from onset without waiting for it to elapse. The GDV model conditions leave that period blank, footnoting only that its measure must respect “dem gesetzlichen Tatbestandsmerkmal der Dauerhaftigkeit (§ 172 Abs. 2 VVG)”, and one large carrier’s AVB sets it at “voraussichtlich auf Dauer (mindestens 3 Jahre)” [S1] [S12]. The Sechs-Monats-Fiktion (§ 2 Abs. 2): where the insured has actually been unable, continuously, for six months, “gilt die Fortdauer dieses Zustandes als Berufsunfähigkeit” with no further prognosis — the fiction exists because a forward-looking prognosis is hard to obtain and easy to contest. Six months is the Fiktion’s period, not the Prognosezeitraum’s; an earlier version of this document ran the two together. A shortened Prognosezeitraum is sold as a tier upgrade [S12], which raises the effective inception rate without changing the definition.
Abstrakte and konkrete Verweisung#
The rules. Abstrakte Verweisung: the insurer refers the insured to an occupation she could take up given her training and abilities and corresponding to her previous Lebensstellung, whether or not she does — permitted by § 172 Abs. 3 only if agreed R1. Konkrete Verweisung: it refers her to another occupation she actually exercises REG-R37.
What they do. The abstrakte Verweisung, where it applies, defeats the claim entirely however unable the insured is to do her own job, because almost anyone can be pointed at some theoretically available occupation. The market standard is now to waive it: essentially every quality tariff sold today contains a Verzicht auf die abstrakte Verweisung, and a tariff retaining it is not sold in the broker channel [S1] [S3]–[S12] REG-R37. The waiver is a competitive standard, not a legal requirement, and legacy books still carry the clause. The konkrete Verweisung is retained, on both sides of the claim: at the initial claim, if the insured has already taken up such an occupation she is not berufsunfähig; and in the Nachprüfung, if she takes one up later, the insurer may end the benefit — subject to the three-month run-off R3. The limit is Lebensstellung: the new occupation must correspond in income and social standing — “nur eine Tätigkeit, die in ihrer Vergütung und sozialen Wertschätzung nicht spürbar unter das Niveau der bislang ausgeübten Tätigkeit absinkt” [S1] — with a working threshold of a 20 % income drop. That figure is now sourced from the conditions rather than recalled: the GDV model conditions offer the sentence “Die höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung geht zur Zeit davon aus, dass im Regelfall eine Minderung der Vergütung in Höhe von bis zu 20 % noch zumutbar ist”, and one carrier’s AVB fixes the reasonable reduction by reference to the case law “jedoch maximal 20 %” [S1] [S12] R29.
Model consequence, a design decision rather than a simplification. Konkrete Verweisung is not a separate decrement: in a cash-flow model it is indistinguishable from recovery — both end the benefit, both operate through the Nachprüfung, both carry the same three-month run-off. The composite folds the two into a single duration-dependent claim-termination-other-than-death rate rather than pretending to separate two things no public data separates.
Anerkenntnis — § 173 VVG#
The rule. On a Leistungsantrag the insurer must declare in Textform, when the claim falls due, whether it acknowledges liability; a time-limited acknowledgement — a befristetes Anerkenntnis — may be given only once R2 REG-R29.
What it does. The Anerkenntnis binds. Once given, the insurer cannot revisit the same
facts; it can only stop paying prospectively, through a Nachprüfung in which the burden of proof
is on the insurer R3 R29. That reversal is the most valuable thing an insured obtains from a
BU claim, and § 173’s restriction exists precisely because insurers previously used repeated
time-limited acknowledgements to keep the burden on the insured indefinitely. Market practice limits
the time-limited form to 6 or 12 months, and a few tariffs waive it entirely [unverified] — no
retrieved wording states a maximum length. What the retrieved conditions do add is a further
restriction beyond the statute: the time-limited acknowledgement is available only “wenn hierfür ein
sachlicher Grund besteht, den wir Ihnen mitteilen werden” [S1].
Timing. German claims studies report an average decision time measured in months — five to six
is recalled — with a long tail [unverified] R21. Because benefit is retroactive to onset, a
delay produces a lump catch-up payment, not a lost payment; the reference implementation pays
from onset and does not model the delay, understating the timing of the early cash flows and
not their amount, which is a numbered pitfall in the technical notes.
Nachprüfung, the three-month run-off and Reaktivierung — § 174 VVG#
The rule. Where the insurer establishes that the conditions of its liability have ceased, it
remains obliged to pay only to the end of the third month following receipt by the policyholder
of a notice in Textform to that effect R3 REG-R29. §§ 173 and 174 are halbzwingend under
§ 175 — no departure to the policyholder’s disadvantage is effective — which is why these mechanics
are uniform across the market and not a competitive variable; insurers may only improve on them,
and some do, by contracting for a longer run-off or by waiving the Nachprüfung after a stated
benefit duration R4 [unverified] — none of the four wordings retrieved for this pass improves on
the statutory floor, all four reproducing the three-month period as it stands. Note also the reach
of § 175: it protects §§ 173 and 174 only, and says nothing about the definition in § 172, which is
exactly why the definition is a competitive variable and the run-off is not. The conditions add a
consequence the statute does not state: at the same date the run-off ends, “müssen Sie auch die
Beiträge wieder zahlen” [S1].
What the insurer must show is a change relative to the state on which the Anerkenntnis rested: a medical improvement lifting the insured above the 50 % threshold in her old occupation, or a new occupation actually taken up satisfying konkrete Verweisung. A re-assessment of the same facts, or correction of the insurer’s own earlier error, does not suffice, and an Einstellungsmitteilung that does not set the comparison out intelligibly is ineffective — so the three-month period never starts to run R29.
What it does to the cash flows, and this is the most model-relevant number in the statutory frame. A recovery does not stop the annuity on the day it happens; it stops it three months later, measured from a notice. Every claim termination other than death is therefore followed by three further monthly payments, and because reactivation is concentrated in the first one to two years of a claim that tail is a real cash-flow effect rather than a rounding detail.
Reaktivierung is the other half. The insured recovers and the cover revives: the contract
does not end, the Beitragsbefreiung stops, the premium resumes at the same Zahlbeitrag — she
has not aged into a higher tariff, because the tariff is level — and a fresh BU may be claimed
later. This bidirectional structure is what makes BU a genuine multi-state model rather than a
decrement model, and is the most important structural difference from delib’s
risikolebensversicherung.
Beitragsbefreiung#
The rule. While the BU-Rente is in payment the premium is waived. In an SBU the waiver covers the SBU’s own premium; in a BUZ it covers the entire premium of the host contract [S1] [S2].
What it does. The Beitragsbefreiung is not a benefit cash flow. It is the absence of a premium cash flow in the disabled state. In a multi-state monthly model it falls out automatically once premiums are weighted by the premium-paying count rather than by total policies in force — and weighting them by all surviving policies is the classic German BU modelling error. It is economically large: on a claim incepting at 45 on a contract to 67 it removes 22 years of premium as well as adding 22 years of annuity. For a typical office tariff the waived premium is of the order of 5 % of the annuity paid std; for a manual trade, where the premium is three times as large for the same BU-Rente, it approaches 15 %.
Karenzzeit and rückwirkende Leistung#
The rules. A Karenzzeit is an agreed deferment between the onset of BU and the first payment [S1], and once a claim is recognised benefit is paid back to the onset (after any Karenzzeit) rather than from the date of the decision.
What they do. Combined with the Sechs-Monats-Fiktion, retroactivity means the first payment on a typical claim is a lump sum covering the elapsed months plus the current one. The premium keeps being paid in the meantime and is refunded for the period the retroactive benefit covers when the Beitragsbefreiung is applied retroactively. That is now sourced rather than assumed: “Bis zur Entscheidung über die Leistungspflicht müssen Sie die Beiträge in voller Höhe weiter entrichten; wir werden diese jedoch bei Anerkennung der Leistungspflicht zurückzahlen” [S1]. The composite starts the Beitragsbefreiung at the benefit date and treats the interim premium and its refund as netting to zero, which is exactly what that clause produces. A Karenzzeit cuts the premium at a real cost in cover, and is one of the two levers consumer advice warns against using [S16] — the other being a reduced Endalter.
Leistungsdauer, Versicherungsdauer and the Endalter#
The rule. Two periods, not one. The Versicherungsdauer is the period during which a BU may incept and be covered — a BU beginning after it ends is not covered at all — while the Leistungsdauer is the period over which benefit is paid on a covered claim, stopping at the Leistungsendalter even if the insured is still berufsunfähig [S1].
What it does. In the market standard the two are equal and both end at the agreed Endalter;
where they differ, the Leistungsdauer is the shorter, a cheaper design [unverified]. The
premium is extremely sensitive to the Endalter, because the last years before retirement carry
by far the highest Invalidisierungswahrscheinlichkeiten: moving it from 67 to 60 removes the
seven most expensive years of cover and a large share of the expected claim cost [unverified] as
to magnitude. It is the single most effective premium lever in the product, and the one consumer
advice warns hardest against. A claim in payment at the Leistungsendalter simply stops — no
commutation, no residual value, no conversion into an old-age annuity; in a BUZ on a
Rentenversicherung the host contract’s annuity then begins, which is exactly why the rider form
is sold.
Bruttobeitrag, Zahlbeitrag and the Beitragsverrechnung#
The rule. § 153 VVG, applied to BU through § 176, entitles the policyholder to a share of the Überschuss and of the Bewertungsreserven unless participation is expressly excluded, allocated by a verursachungsorientiertes Verfahren R10 R5 REG-R24. The MindZV prescribes the minimum share of Rohüberschuss allocated to the Rückstellung für Beitragsrückerstattung by source; the risk-result minimum is 90 % of the risk result (MindZV § 7), and the übriges Ergebnis — for a BU book essentially the expense result — carries a minimum of 50 % (MindZV § 8) R14 REG-R18. Since a BU book’s surplus is overwhelmingly risk plus expense surplus, it is that pair, not the 90 % alone, that ties claims experience to the Zahlbeitrag. § 138 Abs. 1 VAG requires premiums sufficient to meet the obligations permanently, and Abs. 2 equal treatment of equal risks — “Bei gleichen Voraussetzungen dürfen Prämien und Leistungen nur nach gleichen Grundsätzen bemessen werden”, the principle that legitimises Berufsgruppen R15 REG-R8. Unisex is not in the VAG: it follows from § 19 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 AGG with the transitional § 33 Abs. 5 AGG, which permits sex-differentiated premiums only for insurance relationships “die vor dem 21. Dezember 2012 begründet werden” REG-R34.
What it does — the mechanic with no counterpart in the US, UK or French products in this repository. A German BU tariff is quoted as two numbers: the Bruttobeitrag, computed on first-order bases and the contractually guaranteed maximum the insurer may ever charge; and the Zahlbeitrag, what the policyholder actually pays after the anticipated surplus — overwhelmingly risk surplus, because the first-order Invalidisierungswahrscheinlichkeiten are deliberately prudent, plus expense surplus, with a small interest component — has been credited immediately against the premium by Beitragsverrechnung.
The gap is large and it is a risk to the buyer, and that is the point. If risk experience deteriorates or expense surplus falls, the insurer may reduce the Beitragsverrechnung and raise the Zahlbeitrag — up to the Bruttobeitrag and no further. A buyer who chose on Zahlbeitrag alone can face an increase of 40 % or more with no change in cover and no right to complain, which is why consumer advice says to compare Bruttobeiträge [S16] and why the ratings score Beitragsverrechnung stability R22 R23. The empirical frequency and size of such increases is not established and is a named gap.
Alternative Überschussverwendungen appear in some tariffs — a Bonusrente in which surplus buys
additional BU-Rente, verzinsliche Ansammlung, and an Überschussrente im Leistungsfall — with
market shares [unverified]. Beitragsverrechnung is dominant and is what the composite models,
and two retrieved AVB describe it directly: surplus shares assigned as a percentage of the tariff
premium and set off against it, so that “nicht der volle Tarifbeitrag (Bruttobeitrag), sondern nur
der entsprechend ermäßigte Nettobeitrag gezahlt werden muss” [S6], and “Die laufenden
Überschussanteile werden mit dem Tarifbeitrag verrechnet” [S12]. Both offer a Bonusrente as the
alternative form.
The reference implementation projects both streams: the Bruttobeitrag as premium income and
the Beitragsverrechnung as an explicit surplus-credit outgo line, so that the gap between them
is the modelled Überschussbeteiligung. There is no surplus account, no RfB and no declaration
mechanic — a deliberate simplification which is correct for BU precisely because the surplus is
applied immediately rather than accumulated.
Exclusions and the Infektionsklausel#
The rules. The exclusion list is short by international standards and broadly uniform
[unverified] as to any particular carrier: BU caused by war or internal unrest, with a carve-out
where the insured is passively caught up in it; by the deliberate execution or attempted execution
of a crime; by intentional self-harm — and here a correction: § 161 VVG is a death-cover rule
(“Bei einer Versicherung für den Todesfall …”) whose three-year window has no application to a
self-inflicted impairment, and the market’s conditions do not run a window at all. They exclude,
without any time limit, BU caused by “absichtliche Herbeiführung von Krankheit, absichtliche
Herbeiführung mehr als altersentsprechenden Kräfteverfalls, absichtliche Selbstverletzung oder
versuchte Selbsttötung” [S1] R11 R5; by nuclear energy; and in some wordings by aviation other than
as a passenger and defined hazardous activities [S1]. The Infektionsklausel runs the other
way: it deems an official Tätigkeitsverbot imposed under the Infektionsschutzgesetz to be
BU, so a doctor, dentist, nurse or laboratory worker forbidden to practise because she is infected
or a carrier receives the BU-Rente with no 50 % medical test R30 — standard for physicians and
dentists, common for nursing and medical assistants.
What is notably not excluded is illness of any kind, including psychiatric illness — the
largest single cause of BU, recalled at about a third of claims against under a tenth for accidents
R22 [unverified]. A cheaper “BU ohne Psyche” variant exists at the margin [unverified];
consumer advice is uniformly against it. Model consequence: exclusions are absorbed into the
calibration of the inception rate rather than modelled separately, and the Infektionsklausel is
treated as what it is in pricing terms — a higher inception rate in one occupational segment, which
is already how Berufsgruppen enter. Modelling it as a distinct trigger would need a ban-incidence
assumption no public source supplies, and the causes distribution enters this file only as the
reason not to offer an accident-only variant.
Riders and options#
In scope, modelled or parameterized.
Leistungsdynamik, the in-claim annual escalation of the BU-Rente, on in the base run at 2 % std. It is the more important of the two escalations for a liability projection because it compounds over what can be a thirty-year payment period: on a claim incepting at 40 and running to 67 it raises the final payment to about 1,70× the first and the total benefit paid by roughly a third against a level annuity — arithmetic, not a source.
Beitragsdynamik, the pre-claim annual escalation of premium and insured BU-Rente without renewed Gesundheitsprüfung, carried as the second premium form and off in the base run. Take-up is folded into the effective escalation rate rather than modelled as a separate decision, which is the honest treatment of an option whose decline rules — two or three consecutive declines extinguish it permanently
[unverified]— no source quantifies.Karenzzeit, a model-point column, 0 in the base run, with 3, 6 and 12 exercised; Wiedereingliederungshilfe, on at 6 monthly Renten std, paid once on a completed return to work; Risikozuschlag, a multiplier on the Bruttobeitrag, 1,00 in the base run; and the Verlängerungsoption, expressed as the model-point Endalter, because a right exercised in a window before the original Endalter changes the contract’s parameters, not its recursion.
AU-Klausel, present as machinery and inert: a switch and an inception uplift, with the uplift shipped at 1,00 on every model point. That is deliberate, and the reason has narrowed. The clause itself is now documented. It pays the full BU-Rente on a certificate of continuous Arbeitsunfähigkeit without the insurer determining that BU exists, and so raises the effective inception rate and brings payment forward. Its three bounding parameters are established at carrier level: the qualifying period is “6-monatige ununterbrochene Krankschreibung”, or four months plus a specialist’s certificate that it will run two more; the cap is “max. 24 Monate pro Vertragslaufzeit – auch bei mehrfacher Arbeitsunfähigkeit” at that carrier and up to 36 months at another; and payments are set off — “Wird rückwirkend eine BU anerkannt, werden erbrachte AU-Leistungen mit den BU-Leistungen verrechnet (keine Doppelzahlung)” [S4] [S6] [S8] [S12]. The GDV model conditions for the AU variant leave all three blank as unternehmensindividuell, add that the AU claim requires a BU claim to have been made, and forbid paying both at once. What no retrieved document gives is the price: the clause is sold “gegen einen geringen Mehrbeitrag” and no source quantifies the uplift, so the composite still ships the parameter unset rather than inventing one, and the model point that switches the clause on remains an invariance test: the option is present and demonstrably moves nothing until a user supplies a number.
Out of scope, specified here and not modelled.
Nachversicherungsgarantie, the right to increase the insured BU-Rente without a fresh Gesundheitsprüfung on a defined event — marriage or registered partnership, birth or adoption, completion of studies or training, a first job or substantial pay rise, property purchase or a mortgage, starting self-employment, and in some tariffs the death of a partner or a divorce; with event-independent windows in some tariffs, per-event and aggregate caps, an age limit, an exercise window and the Angemessenheitsgrenze on income. The shape is no longer recalled. One retrieved AVB gives the whole apparatus: a per-event cap of 6 000 EUR of annual BU-Rente, 12 000 EUR for three income-based events, an aggregate of 18 000 EUR, 30 000 EUR including a separate Berufseinsteiger guarantee, an age limit of 50 (35 for that guarantee) and a twelve-month window from each event [S4]; another caps the total BU, EU and Grundfähigkeit entitlement — including other private and occupational entitlements — at “nicht mehr als 60 % des regelmäßigen jährlichen Bruttoeinkommens”, 25 % for Beamte, with a 50 EUR minimum increase and the same age limit and window [S9]. The event lists and the caps differ between the two, which is where the variation actually lies; the “may at most be doubled” formulation was a recollection and is withdrawn [S1] [S4] [S9]. It is the single most valuable option in the German BU product, because it lets a healthy 25-year-old lock in insurability cheaply and build the cover as income grows. Any on-run needs a take-up assumption and an anti-selection loading on the incremental cover, and neither is sourceable — so it is specified and named as unmodelled, which is the honest treatment.
The Infektionsklausel; Umorganisationshilfe, Reha-Hilfe, Soforthilfe and Pflege add-ons; Bonusrente, verzinsliche Ansammlung and the Überschussrente im Leistungsfall; Stundung and Anwartschaft; and a Staffelregelung or “Teil-BU” paying a partial BU-Rente between 25 % and 50 %
[unverified], against which the composite models the all-or-nothing form.
Variations across insurers#
This table records where the variation lies, not who sits where. Five insurer wordings were
retrieved and read for the provenance pass of 2026-08-30 — Alte Leipziger, NÜRNBERGER, VOLKSWOHL
BUND, Debeka and CosmosDirekt [S4] [S6] [S9] [S12] — together with the GDV model conditions for the
SBU, the BUZ and the BU-with-AU variant [S1] [S2] [S8]. Where a row now names a reading, the reading
comes from one of those documents and the tag says which. What is still missing is price: no
tariff table, no occupational factor and no Brutto / Zahlbeitrag pair was obtained, so no row
compares carriers on cost, and a row that would need one carries [unverified].
Feature |
Market position |
Where carriers genuinely differ |
Composite |
Tag |
|---|---|---|---|---|
BU definition — last occupation, 50 % degree |
Uniform in shape, descended from the GDV model text; the numbers are not in the model text, which leaves the degree and the prognosis period blank |
The degree is 50 % across the retrieved wordings; the Prognosezeitraum is not — “auf Dauer (mindestens 3 Jahre)” at one carrier, shortened as a tier upgrade at another |
Market standard, 50 % |
|
Abstrakte Verweisung |
Waived by essentially all current tariffs |
Legacy books only |
Waived |
[S1]–[S12] REG-R37 |
Konkrete Verweisung |
Retained; the Lebensstellung threshold is stated in the wordings and quantified at a 20 % income reduction |
Whether it is waived on a material income drop; how the 20 % is applied — one carrier fixes it “je nach Lage des Einzelfalls … jedoch maximal 20 %” |
Retained, folded into the termination rate |
[S1] [S12] |
Prognosezeitraum, retroactivity |
Prognosis period set per carrier, up to three years; six months is the Fiktion, not the prognosis. The claim arises with the end of the month in which BU began |
The prognosis period is a headline differentiator and a tier upgrade; whether the Fiktion pays back to onset or only forward |
6 months, from onset |
[S1] [S12] |
Anerkenntnis and Nachprüfung |
Time limitation permitted once and only on a stated sachlicher Grund, § 173 and [S1]; re-examination by medical examination at most once a year under the retrieved wordings |
Maximum length of a befristetes Anerkenntnis, some waiving it; some waive the Nachprüfung after a stated benefit duration — no retrieved wording states either |
Continuous termination rate; no acknowledged state |
|
Three-month run-off |
Statutory floor, § 174 |
Some contract for longer |
Three months exactly |
|
Karenzzeit menu |
0 as standard; where agreed it defers the pension only and lowers the premium |
The menu of durations, which sits in the Tarifbestimmungen and was not retrieved |
0, with 3, 6, 12 exercised |
[S4] [S9] |
Endalter menu |
65 or 67 |
60 / 62 / 63 as budget options — the menu sits in the Tarifbestimmungen, none of which was retrieved |
67, with 60 and a split 63/67 exercised |
|
Leistungsdauer vs Versicherungsdauer |
Two distinct periods, defined separately in every retrieved wording; equal in the standard sale |
A shorter Leistungsdauer as a cheaper design |
Equal, with one split model point |
[S1] [S9] |
AU-Klausel |
The principal differentiator, and now documented: full BU-Rente, paid on a certificate rather than on a BU determination |
Present or absent; the qualifying period (6 months, or 4 plus a specialist prognosis); the cap — 24 months per contract at one carrier, up to 36 at another; whether a parallel BU claim is required; set-off against a later BU award, which one carrier applies expressly |
Present, inert |
[S4] [S6] [S8] [S12] |
Nachversicherungsgarantie |
Present everywhere; event-triggered, without renewed health questions, with an age limit of 50 and a twelve-month window in both retrieved wordings |
Event-list breadth, and the caps: 6 000 EUR per event with an 18 000 / 30 000 EUR aggregate at one carrier, a 60 %-of-gross-income ceiling on total entitlement at another |
Specified, not modelled |
[S4] [S9] |
Leistungsdynamik |
Offered everywhere |
1 – 3 % fixed, or index-linked |
2 % fixed std |
|
Beitragsdynamik |
Offered everywhere |
1 – 10 %, commonly 3 % or 5 %; two or three declines extinguish it |
3 % std, off in the base run |
|
Wiedereingliederungshilfe |
Common |
3 to 12 monthly Renten |
6 std |
|
Infektionsklausel |
Standard for medical occupations |
Scope of occupations covered |
Not modelled |
R30 |
Berufsgruppen |
4 – 6 typical |
3 at direct writers to 10+ at specialists; which occupations are declined; the classes are not comparable across carriers |
Five classes, 1,00 – 4,50 std |
[S6] |
Zahlbeitrag / Bruttobeitrag |
0,50 – 0,80 |
The widest and least transparent variation in the product |
0,70 std |
|
Channel |
Broker vs direct vs bank/Öffentliche |
Option breadth and occupational appetite track the channel, not the carrier: direct and bank channels sell simpler tariffs, narrower coverage, fewer options |
Broker-channel design |
[S12] |
What the composite is, in one paragraph. A single-life individual standalone SBU on a monthly grid; the market-standard definition — last occupation, 50 %, six-month prognosis with the six-month fiction, abstrakte Verweisung waived, konkrete Verweisung retained; a level Bruttobeitrag guaranteed for the term with a Zahlbeitrag of 0,70 × Bruttobeitrag std, so the Brutto/Zahl gap is the modelled Überschussbeteiligung and no surplus account is needed; a monthly BU-Rente in advance from onset, no Karenzzeit, Leistungsdynamik 2 % std; full Beitragsbefreiung in claim; benefit ending at the Leistungsendalter, on death, or on a Nachprüfung termination followed by the statutory three-month run-off; Reaktivierung returning the life to the premium-paying state with a Wiedereingliederungshilfe of six monthly Renten std; an acceptance factor of 0,80 std on the inception rate; occupational rating as a multiplicative factor on that rate, 1,00 office and 3,00 reference manual std; and no surrender or paid-up cash flow modelled.
Regulatory context#
Contract law — the VVG. The product’s own chapter is §§ 172–177: § 172 the definition and the permission to agree an abstrakte Verweisung; § 173 the Anerkenntnis and its once-only time limitation; § 174 the Leistungsfreiheit and its three-month notice; § 175 making §§ 173–174 halbzwingend; § 176 applying §§ 150–170 entsprechend; and § 177 extending §§ 173–176 to every contract promising a benefit for a dauerhafte impairment of working capacity R1–R6 REG-R29. Two readings of § 177 have been corrected against the text. It reaches only cover of a lasting impairment — Grundfähigkeits- and Erwerbsunfähigkeitsversicherung — so a benefit for temporary Arbeitsunfähigkeit does not come within it; an AU-Klausel is protected because it sits inside a BU contract to which §§ 172 ff. apply directly. And Abs. 2 excludes accident insurance and health-insurance contracts covering impaired working capacity, so it does not extend the frame to accident cover. § 176’s reach is no longer a gap: it applies “die §§ 150 bis 170 … entsprechend …, soweit die Besonderheiten dieser Versicherung nicht entgegenstehen”, which is the authority for an Überschussbeteiligung (§ 153) R10 REG-R24, a prämienfreie Versicherung (§ 165) R8, a Kündigung right and a Rückkaufswert (§§ 168–169) R9 REG-R28 and, subject to that reservation, the Selbsttötung rule (§ 161) R11. The reservation matters twice over: § 169 Abs. 1 is drafted for risks whose occurrence is certain, and § 161 for death cover. Outside it, § 19 governs the vorvertragliche Anzeigepflicht and the insurer’s remedies for a breach of it while § 21 Abs. 3 — not § 19 — extinguishes those remedies after five years, ten on intent or fraud, and not at all for claims that arose inside the period, § 157 the misstatement of age, and § 158 the rule that an increase in risk counts as such only where expressly agreed to — which is why a German BU contract carries no general occupation-change clause and why this model needs no reunderwriting state R7 REG-R30.
Disclosure. The VVG-InfoV mandates the Produktinformationsblatt for life and BU contracts R12 REG-R31. For a savings contract it also mandates the Effektivkosten, but for a pure risk contract there is no yield to reduce, so a BU PIB discloses costs only through the Brutto/Zahlbeitrag pair [S13]; and because PRIIPs reaches insurance-based investment products, a standalone SBU normally has no Basisinformationsblatt at all [S14] REG-R32 — the opposite of delib’s savings products, where the KID is the richest public document. Those two absences are why every charge assumption here is std while the delib endowment’s are not. Distribution sits under the IDD and § 34d GewO, with §§ 6, 7 and 1a VVG and BaFin’s Merkblatt 01/2023 (VA) on Wohlverhaltensaufsicht above them REG-R33 REG-R31 REG-R35.
Supervision and pricing. § 138 VAG requires premiums sufficient to meet the obligations
permanently and equal treatment of equal risks; § 139 governs the Überschussbeteiligung on the
supervisory side; §§ 141–143 place the bases with the Verantwortlicher Aktuar R15 REG-R8
REG-R9 REG-R11. The DeckRV fixes the Höchstrechnungszins — 0,25 % for contracts written
2022–2024, raised to 1,00 % from 1 January 2025 [unverified] on both figures and the date — and
the Höchstzillmersatz of 25 ‰ R13 REG-R14–REG-R16; the MindZV prescribes the minimum
allocation of Rohüberschuss to the RfB by source, the risk-result minimum being the one that
governs a BU book R14 REG-R18 REG-R19. Unisex pricing has been compulsory since
21 December 2012 R15 REG-R34 and bites unusually hard here: the underlying
Invalidisierungswahrscheinlichkeiten differ materially by sex [unverified], so a unisex tariff
embeds a portfolio mix assumption the insurer bears the risk of. BaFin supervises Leistungsprüfung
practice as a conduct matter and publishes the Beschwerdestatistik, in which BU is persistently
over-represented relative to its premium share [unverified] R19.
Actuarial bases. The German BU standard is the DAV 1997 family — DAV 1997 I for Invalidisierungswahrscheinlichkeiten, DAV 1997 RI for Reaktivierungswahrscheinlichkeiten by age at disablement and duration since disablement, DAV 1997 TI for Sterbewahrscheinlichkeiten der Invaliden — with a Todesfall-character active-lives table, DAV 2008 T R16 R17 REG-R50 REG-R48. These are the property of the Deutsche Aktuarvereinigung, are not public, and are not redistributed by delib. Three findings belong on the record: the naming is itself uncertain, since reading “TI” as the reactivation table would leave disabled-life mortality unspecified, which no multi-state BU model can do REG-R50; whether a successor to DAV 1997 I exists in general market use could not be established R16 R18; and the age of the basis is a finding in itself — tables built in 1997 on older experience, against a population whose causes mix has moved decisively towards psychiatric diagnoses and whose incentives changed when the statutory Berufsunfähigkeitsrente closed to the post-1960 cohorts, carry a heavy safety loading, which is why the German BU market runs a large and persistent Bruttobeitrag/Zahlbeitrag gap REG-R50 REG-R37. The two-basis structure this implies — erster Ordnung for the tariff and the Deckungsrückstellung, zweiter Ordnung for what actually happens, with the Sicherheitszuschlag between them released as Risikoüberschuss — is set out at REG-R47, and the direction of prudence for a disability product is higher incidence and lower reactivation.
Reserving and prudential. A BU book carries two reserves, not one: a Deckungsrückstellung for active lives, the prospective difference between future benefits and future premiums; and a Leistungsrückstellung — a Deckungsrückstellung für laufende Renten — for claims in payment, the present value of the remaining annuity on disabled-lives bases, much the larger per life R9 R21. Above them sit the statutory accounts under §§ 341–341o HGB and the RechVersV REG-R54, Solvency II best estimate plus risk margin REG-R1 REG-R2 REG-R4, and IFRS 17 REG-R55. delib computes none of them: it publishes gross undiscounted liability cash flows and names the valuation layers rather than reproducing them.
Taxation, and why the same liability is sold in two wrappers. For a standalone SBU
(Schicht 3) the premium is a sonstige Vorsorgeaufwendung under § 10 Abs. 1 Nr. 3a EStG,
deductible only inside an annual ceiling recalled as 1 900 € (employees, civil servants) or
2 800 € (self-employed) [unverified] — in practice already consumed by statutory health and
long-term-care contributions, so the effective deduction for most buyers is nil. The BU-Rente
is then an abgekürzte Leibrente taxed on its Ertragsanteil under § 22 Nr. 1 EStG, read from
a table keyed on the annuity’s remaining term at the start of payment rather than on the
recipient’s age — recalled at about 5 % for 5 years remaining, 12 % for 10, 16 % for 15, 21 % for
20, 26 % for 25 and 30 % for 30, all [unverified] R27 REG-R41. For BU inside a Basisrente
(Schicht 1) the whole premium is an Altersvorsorgeaufwendung deductible within the much larger
Basisrente ceiling, provided the benefit is an annuity, does not run beyond the host’s deferment,
and is no more than 49 % of the total premium [unverified]; in exchange the BU-Rente is
fully taxable at the cohort Besteuerungsanteil R27 R28 REG-R38 REG-R39. The trade is not
obviously favourable, and the 49 % rule forces a large savings premium alongside the cover, which is
why the standalone SBU remains the dominant retail form. delib projects gross, pre-tax cash flows
in every product, so nothing in the model depends on any of these figures and nothing here asserts
them.
Case law. Four settled BGH lines govern the claim in practice, each recalled in substance and
[unverified] in every detail, with no docket number given anywhere in this library because
none could be confirmed: the binding effect of the Anerkenntnis; the Nachprüfung’s requirement
of a demonstrated change rather than a re-decision; Lebensstellung as the limit on any
Verweisung; and the self-employed insured’s Umorganisationspflicht, to consider whether the
business can be reorganised so she can continue within her remaining capacity — but only where that
is economically sensible and does not cost her a substantial part of her income or her leading
position R29 REG-R36.