Catch-22: Impossible Requirements the Insurer Admits Cannot Be Met
8/10Catch-22 Constructions (EN)
The Definition
A Catch-22 occurs when the insurer sets a requirement as a precondition for coverage — while simultaneously acknowledging or demonstrating that the requirement is impossible to meet. The consumer is trapped in a logical snare: the requirement is stated, but fulfillment is impossible.
Case 4: "Obtain a Municipal Order" (That Cannot Be Obtained)
In Case 4 (asbestos), Gjensidige required the Claimant to obtain a municipal order for asbestos removal as a precondition for acknowledging the insurance claim.
The trap: In the same rejection letter, Gjensidige stated that the municipality typically does not issue such orders for private land — unless groundwater is at risk.
The logic: 1. Gjensidige requires a municipal order → no order, no coverage 2. Gjensidige states the municipality doesn't issue such orders → the order cannot be obtained 3. The Claimant can neither meet the requirement nor circumvent it → the rejection is irrefutable by design
Case 6: "Pay for the Evidence Yourself" (That We Already Have)
In Case 6 (sewage), Gjensidige required the Claimant to personally pay for a CCTV sewer inspection (5,000-10,000 DKK) as a precondition for even evaluating the claim.
The trap: Simultaneously, Gjensidige ignored the evidence already available — namely a legally binding municipal order from Syddjurs Municipality requiring repair of the sewer line. Gjensidige dismissed this as a "standard letter."
The logic: 1. Gjensidige demands evidence (CCTV inspection) → the customer must pay 2. Gjensidige ignores existing evidence (municipal order) → evidence already provided doesn't count 3. The customer must pay to prove something the municipality has already established → double payment, double rejection
Tryg: Double Bind
Although Tryg's cases don't contain the same explicit Catch-22 formulation, they contribute to the overall trap:
- Gjensidige rejects the damages under the title insurance
- Tryg rejects legal aid to pursue the case against the previous owner
- The Claimant can neither get coverage nor fair access to the courts
Why It Is Illegal
The Danish Contracts Act § 36 allows unreasonable contract terms to be set aside. A requirement that the insurer itself acknowledges is impossible to meet is by definition unreasonable.
Good insurance practice prohibits insurers from setting requirements that effectively make it impossible for the insured to obtain coverage.
The Pattern
Catch-22 constructions are not errors in case handling — they are designed rejection mechanisms. By setting formally correct but practically impossible requirements, the insurer can reject any claim while maintaining that the rejection is factually justified.