6.7.7.1 General claims and disputes

The group is a respondent in a number of claims, disputes and legal proceedings arising from the normal conduct of business.

Provisions are formed for such occurrences if, in management’s opinion and after consultation with its legal advisors, a.s.r. is likely to have to make payments and the payable amount can be estimated with sufficient reliability. The costs of the compensation scheme for unit-linked insurance contracts have been fully recognised in the financial statements based on management’s best knowledge of current facts, actions, claims, complaints and events. Provisions are recognised in the liabilities arising from insurance contracts (see chapter 6.5.15) and legal provisions (see chapter 6.5.18).

Dutch insurers see an increase in insurance policies complaints / claims based on grounds other than the cost compensation. Current and possible future legal proceedings could have a substantial financial and reputational impact. However it is not possible at this time to make reliable estimates of the number of expected proceedings, possible future precedents and the financial impact of current and possible future proceedings. Currently there are no indications that such a provision would be necessary for a.s.r.

As for other claims and legal proceedings, against a.s.r. known to management (and for which, in accordance with the defined principles, no provision has been formed), management believes, after having sought expert advice, that these claims have no chance of success, or that a.s.r. can successfully mount a defense against them, or that the outcome of the proceedings is unlikely to result in a significant loss for a.s.r. For further information related to the Unit-Linked Products (beleggingsverzekeringen), see chapter 6.7.7.2.

6.7.7.2 Unit-Linked Products (beleggingsverzekeringen)

Background

Since the end of 2006, individual unit-linked life insurance products (beleggingsverzekeringen) have received negative attention in the Dutch media, from the Dutch Parliament, the AFM, consumers and consumer protection organisations. Elements of unit-linked policies are being challenged or may be challenged on multiple legal grounds. The criticism and scrutiny on unit-linked life insurance products led to the introduction of compensation schemes by Dutch insurance companies that have offered unit-linked products. In 2008, a.s.r. reached an outline agreement with two main consumer protection organisations to offer compensation to unit-linked policyholders in case the cost charge and / or risk premium charge exceeds a defined maximum. A full agreement on implementation of the compensation scheme was reached in 2012. The total recognised cumulative financial costs relating to the compensation scheme for Individual life in a.s.r.’s income statement until 2021 was € 1,026 million. This includes, amongst other things, compensation paid, amortisation of surrender penalties and costs relating to improved product offerings. The remaining provision in the balance sheet at 31 December 2021 is solely available to cover potential additional compensation (schrijnende gevallen) and costs relating to the compensation scheme. On the basis of this agreement, a.s.r. offered consumers additional measures such as alternative products and less costly investment funds. In addition to the compensation scheme, a.s.r. has implemented additional measures (flankerend beleid), including the ten best in class principles as formulated by the Dutch Minister of Finance. On 17 July 2015, the Dutch Ministry of Finance published an Order in Council (Algemene Maatregel van Bestuur), pursuant to which insurance companies can be sanctioned if they do not meet the compulsory targets set for approaching policyholders of unit-linked life insurances and prompting them to review their existing policies.

The agreement with the two consumer protection organisations and additional measures are not binding for policyholders. Consequently, neither the implementation of the compensation schemes nor the additional measures offered by a.s.r. prevent individual policyholders from initiating legal proceedings against a.s.r. and making claims for damages.

Legal proceedings

a.s.r. is subject to a limited number of legal proceedings initiated by individual unit-linked policyholders, in most cases represented by claims organisations. While to date fewer than 10 cases are pending before Dutch courts and courts of appeal and fewer than 100 cases are pending before the Financial Services Complaints Board ("FSCB") (the Dispute Committee as well as the Committee of Appeal of the FSCB), there is no assurance that further proceedings will not be brought against a.s.r. in the future. Future legal proceedings regarding unit-linked life insurance policies might be brought upon a.s.r. by consumers individually, by consumer organisations acting on their behalf or in the form of a collective action. Furthermore, there is an ongoing lobby by consumer protection organisations, such as the Consumentenbond and Stichting Geldbelangen, to continuously gain media attention for unit-linked life insurance policies. These organisations argue, amongst other things, that consumers did not receive sufficient compensation based on the compensation scheme.

a.s.r. is currently subject to three collective actions. The claims are all based on similar grounds and have been rejected by a.s.r. and a.s.r. defends itself in these legal proceedings. The timing and outcome of these collective actions is currently uncertain.

In June 2016, Woekerpolis.nl initiated a collective action, requesting the Midden-Nederland District Court to declare that a.s.r. has sold products in the market which were defective in various respects (e.g. lack of transparency regarding cost charges and other product characteristics, and risks against which the insurer had failed to warn, such as substantial stock depreciations, inability to realise the projected final policy value, unrealistic capital projections due to the difference between geometric and arithmetic returns, and general terms and conditions governing costs which Woekerpolis.nl considered unfair). In its judgement of 6 February 2019, the court rejected all claims regarding transparency of costs and risks. Only with regard to the claim relating to administrative costs ("administratiekosten") that are calculated in ABC Spaarplan in case of high premiums, the court decided that this is unlawful. On 16 April 2019 a.s.r. received a notice of appeal from the Vereniging Woekerpolis.nl. Subsequently, the Vereniging Woekerpolis.nl has submitted its statement of appeal at the High Court of Arnhem Leeuwarden on 3 March 2020. The statement of response by a.s.r. has been deferred by the Court of Appeal. Main reason for this deferral lies with the developments regarding the preliminary questions from the High Court of the Hague towards the Supreme Court in the proceedings (Collective Action) between Woekerpolis.nl and another Dutch insurer.

On 11 February 2022, the Supreme Court has answered the preliminary questions from Court of Appeal The Hague on information obligations for unit-linked policies. The Supreme Court primarily considers that Dutch civil law is applicable to the legal relationship between insurer and insured. It is up to lower courts to decide whether Dutch civil law entails obligations to provide information in addition to the obligations arising from specific regulations and, if so, which obligations. The Supreme Court holds that potential additional information obligations must satisfy the criteria formulated by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2015. The collective actions against a.s.r that have been deferred in view of the preliminary questions before the Supreme Court, will be resumed.

In March 2017, the Consumentenbond also initiated a collective action against a.s.r. based on similar grounds to that initiated by Woekerpolis.nl. In its judgement dated 11 March 2020 the Court dismissed all claims of Consumentenbond against a.s.r. On 8 June 2020 a.s.r. received a notice of appeal from the Consumentenbond.

In December 2019, claim organisation Wakkerpolis initiated a collective action against a.s.r. Although the claim from ‘Wakkerpolis’ is largely based on similar grounds as the other two collective actions, it primarily concentrates on the lack of transparency of cost charges.

Risk profile and contingent liability unit-linked life insurance products

The prolonged political, regulatory and public attention focused on unit-linked life insurance policies continues. Elements of unit-linked life insurance policies of a.s.r. are being challenged on multiple legal grounds in current, and may be challenged in future, legal proceedings. There is a risk that one or more of the current and/or future claims and/or allegations will succeed. To date, a number of rulings regarding unit-linked life insurance products in specific cases have been issued by the FSCB and courts (of appeal) in the Netherlands against a.s.r. and other insurers. In these proceedings, different (legal) approaches have been taken to come to a ruling. The outcomes of these rulings are diverse. Because the book of policies of a.s.r. dates back many years, contains a variety of products with different features and conditions and because of the fact that rulings are diverse, no reliable estimation can be made regarding the timing and the outcome of the current and future legal proceedings brought against a.s.r. nor the impact thereon as a result of recent developments for other insurance companies.

The total costs related to compensation for unit-linked insurance contracts as described above, have been fully recognised in the financial statements based on management’s best knowledge of current facts, actions, claims, complaints and events. Provisions are recognised in the liabilities arising from insurance contracts (see chapter 6.5.15). Although the financial consequences of the legal developments could be substantial, a.s.r.’s exposures cannot be reliably estimated or quantified at this point. If one or more of these legal proceedings should succeed, there is a risk a ruling, although legally only binding for the parties that are involved in the procedure, could be applied to or be relevant for other unit-linked life insurance policies sold by a.s.r. Consequently, the financial consequences of any of the current and/or future legal proceedings brought upon a.s.r. can be substantial for a.s.r.’s Life insurance business and may have a material adverse effect on a.s.r.’s financial position, business, reputation, revenues, results of operations, solvency, financial condition and prospects.

6.7.7.3 Obligations and guarantees

Investment obligations for an amount of € 128 million (2020: € 63 million) have been assumed / issued for investment property.

Investment obligations and guarantees for a total amount of € 21 million (2020: € 20 million) have been issued, for real estate development projects and the acquisition of property. Those guarantees were issued by principals for the execution of projects for the benefit of clients.

a.s.r. also had irrevocable facilities of € 1,123 million (2020: € 877 million) which mainly relate to mortgage offers issued. a.s.r. issued several other guarantees for a total amount of € 1 million (2020: € 2 million). a.s.r. has pledged certain guarantees to the bank regarding the loan for the windmill parks.

6.7.7.4 Expected future lease payments

The following table sets out the expected future lease payments for investment property and plants, showing the undiscounted lease payments to be received after the reporting date.

The investments properties, in retail, residential, offices and rural markets are leased to third parties, consisting of various lease terms in a range between shorter than one year and undetermined period with competitive rents mostly indexed to consumer prices. The plants are leased to third parties with lease terms longer than ten years.

6.7.7.5 Contingent considerations in acquisitions

The consideration paid for Veherex by a.s.r. non-life includes a contingent consideration with a remaining fair value of
€ 4 million to be paid over a period of three years. Of this amount, € 1 million is expected to be paid no later than one year after the balance sheet date, the remaining € 3 million no later than three years after the balance sheet date.