Can the insurance company ask about THC use?

Anyone who takes out an insurance policy in accordance with the Health Insurance Act KVG (this is compulsory) does not have to answer any questions at all about their state of health or drug use. The health insurance company is not allowed to refuse anyone anyway. Everyone is free to choose their insurance here (but must choose one) and all health insurances must provide exactly the same, legally prescribed benefits. Whether someone smokes pot or not.

However, as soon as a supplementary insurance is to be taken out, it is no longer the KVG that applies here, but the Insurance Contract Act VVG. And this allows the insurance companies to ask a variety of questions. And depending on the answer, they can also reject an application for insurance or make reservations. Incidentally, most insurance policies are concluded in accordance with the VVG (for example, supplementary health insurance or daily allowance insurance).

Anyone who answers no to the question “Do you or have you regularly consumed alcohol or drugs?” is still allowed to smoke pot from time to time. The Federal Court has ruled in favor of an occasional THC user who was of the opinion that the question was whether he smoked pot regularly. But this was not the case, he only smoked occasionally. He got away with it. The Federal Court said that the insurance question was unclear. Thus, the daily allowance insurance had to pay.

But if the question is more specific, for example, “Do you consume or have you consumed cannabis products?” then the insurance company may well reduce the benefits if the insured person's consumption becomes known. And if you have answered the question truthfully, the insurance company can refuse to conclude the contract or make reservations, i.e. exclude certain benefits.

Many legal protection insurances and liability insurances exclude benefits in connection with hemp or hemp products. For example, the business insurance for our association Legalize it! also states: “Not insured is the liability arising from the trade in hemp and hemp products and the cultivation of hemp.” Since we don't sell hemp products, we don't care about that. But it does show that the insurance company wants to keep out of possible claims from this business field. Such reservations are rarely included in the general terms and conditions of the contract, which all insured persons receive, but are added as special supplements depending on the specific circumstances of the insured person.

It is still unclear how far case law will adopt the views from the Traffic Regulation Ordinance (according to which anyone with even the smallest traces of THC in their blood is unfit to drive). It is at least conceivable that in the case of other accidents (without a car, but e.g. with machines), grossly negligent behavior will always be assumed if THC is found in the blood - and thus benefits can be reduced (as is also the case with extreme sports or other specifically dangerous and “unusual” activities).

In any case, it is clear that if the opinion prevails that everyone with some THC in their blood generally accepts a greater risk, the future looks bleak. Because even if a legalization of the consumption should come once, such problems would remain nevertheless. And at best, they could be mitigated by (expensive) special insurances.