Media Release No. 05/11
insurance coverage "as-worker" in mutual-aid ? The plaintiff was the owner
a row house, which was part of a terraced house, built in the spring and fall cleaning of the neighbors together. This helped the spouses or with family members. After each working day was held a barbecue. The required tools brought any with you. Everyone worked there, where work being obtained.
cut the accident the plaintiff first hedge. The co-owner B. and N. purified the common gutter, front and rear. After a mutual break in the morning the work was substantially completed shortly before noon. It should only be placed on the grid and the gutter tools and equipment are put away. At that time, decided N. to try to remove the moss from his roof. Had not taken a decision on the neighbors while, but they would have removed the moss from the rooftops if this attempt would be successful. After N. had risen to its roof, it occurred to plaintiff under the ladder to him to throw two wire brushes. Here, the plaintiff fell from a ladder and suffered a serious head injury.
The defendant accident insurance refused to recognize the accident as a work accident and the granting of compensation from the statutory accident insurance because the plaintiff when the accident occurred not gainfully employed as an employee or employed a similar activity was investigated. For he time of the accident in their own interest, activity was performed. Application and appeal were unsuccessful. The revision of the plaintiff by the BSG now by the fifth sentence July 2005 (ref. B 2 U 4.22 R) is rejected.
insurance coverage as salaried employees already retired from because the plaintiff does not act as employees, but on their own initiative as part of a mutual aid was when he crashed.
insurance in statutory accident insurance could then possibly have existed under § 2 para 2 SGB VII as a so-called As-workers. Thereafter, persons insured, although not in a formal employment relationship, but as a salaried employee, for example, in a neighborhood assistance act.
Whether a mutual aid is insured eg in statutory accident insurance, depends essentially on the criteria for employment. Insurance coverage but will also be granted if the conditions of the employment relationship are not fully met and at a possibly only temporary work, the basic structure of an employment relationship exists, because
· a serious work of economic value is present,
• the a foreign Company is to serve and the real or presumed intention of the company corresponds
· under such circumstances as to any of the activities are related because of an employment relationship and not based on a special relationship such as a family member or club member. Measured against these principles
the plaintiff in the accident is not like an employee become active. According to the findings of LSG - on which the SPA is bound as a court of appeal - the owners of the terraced house for common cleaning and maintenance of the facility had agreed. The participation in this campaign and the work contributions of each individual were not ultimately the interests other owners, but the common interests of all owners - and thus the plaintiff - in the preservation and maintenance of title to the adjoining houses. It makes no difference whether the work was carried out pre-planned or whether, as the activity in which the accident occurred, were later taken in spontaneous attack. Since the applicant has followed the activities leading to the accident his own purposes, he was not employee-related, but business-related work. This includes insurance coverage as As-employed according to § 2 para 2 SGB VII and thus claims from the statutory accident insurance.
Az: B U 2 4.22
P. R. /. Unfallkasse Schleswig-Holstein
www.inidia.de / bundessozialgericht.htm
MSF's Response: the sentence does not create clarity
