A car owner is not entitled to compensation in the event of theft from his car if it can be locked and unlocked via radio using the keyless go system and then opened without the use of force. The insurance company does not have to pay if the home insurance only applies when the vehicle is “broken into”. A corresponding judgment of the Munich District Court dated 12. March (Az. 274 C 7752 / 19 ) is now final, after the regional court had rejected the appeal at the end of September.

The plaintiff had from a Munich insurance company 3314, 72 Euro for a suitcase stolen from the car. The pilot had parked the car at the end of 2018 in Frankfurt in the Bahnhofsviertel and left it for five minutes.

During this time, an unknown perpetrator stole a travel agent and a pilot’s case. However, there were no signs of a break in on the car. The stolen person immediately notified the local police station and filed a criminal complaint against unknown persons. This procedure was discontinued because no perpetrator could be identified. The plaintiff received parts of his uniform, identification documents and pilot’s license back from the law enforcement officers after they found the remains in a garbage can in the immediate vicinity of the crime scene.

No breaking open According to the household insurance contract, insured items that are “stolen by breaking open a locked vehicle” are also compensated. In this case, the pilot stated that the car was “safely” locked. The perpetrator probably unlocked the locking system with a so-called relay attack by overcoming the keyless go mechanism with an unauthorized radio signal. The plaintiff said that this procedure falls under the term “breaking open”.

According to a statement by the local court on Friday, however, the insurance company was of the opinion that it did not have to pay for the damage. A break in requires more than any unauthorized opening. If a “wrong key” is used, the required fact is just not fulfilled.

The competent judge at the district court justified his judgment with the fact that according to common language usage and the definition of the Duden, breaking up “the Use of force “. It is not absolutely necessary that something be damaged in the process. However, if a car is opened unauthorized by an amplified or “wrong” radio signal, this does not fall under a corresponding procedure.

For the cost and risk calculation of the defendant, according to the judge’s ruling, it is inevitably necessary that the The scope of insurance and the associated risks are clearly defined. Additional insured risks could not simply be included in the contract later, contrary to the clear wording, through your own interpretation.

Unauthorized opening For the court, the aspect of the verifiability of the incident by the insurance company speaks in favor of treating unauthorized opening differently than a break in. In the event of the insured violent break-in, traces are likely to be left behind. A radio hack, on the other hand, could only be differentiated from a “simple forgetting of locking” in a much more uncertain manner on the basis of the information provided by the policyholder and possibly witnesses. This would also result in a not inconsiderable risk of abuse.

The keyless go system has long been considered unsuitable by experts