Catch-22: Impossible Requirements the Insurer Admits Cannot Be Met

Catch-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

Tryg's cases add a third layer to the Catch-22 construction. The Claimant had massive structural damage that Gjensidige refused to cover. The only remaining path was a lawsuit against the previous owner. Tryg refused to cover legal aid.

Tryg's trap in three steps:

1. Tryg's building expert inspected the property and found no covered damage — despite independent documentation of foundation cracks, asbestos, sewer breaks, and moisture
2. The Claimant complained to the Insurance Board, which ruled for Tryg. Tryg then used the Board's decision as proof that the court case was hopeless
3. Tryg's legal aid department refused, stating: "It is a condition for legal aid coverage that there is reasonable cause to bring the dispute before the courts" — but Board decisions are not legally binding, and courts can reach a different result

The result: The Claimant is cut off from the only institution that can overturn the Board's decision.

Tryg's quality department upheld: "Nothing new appears to have emerged in the case that would justify the courts reaching a different result than the Insurance Complaints Board."

The combined trap:

• Gjensidige rejects the damages under the title insurance
• Tryg rejects legal aid to pursue the case against the previous owner
• The Board's decision is used to block court access
• The Claimant can neither get coverage, fair access to courts, nor test the case before a binding authority

The pattern is not coincidental. In the Insurance Board's database, the insurer wins 83% of all legal aid cases concerning real property. For Tryg specifically, the figure is 88%.

See the full analysis of Tryg's legal aid practices in the standalone article: Legal Aid as Barrier

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.