Legal Aid as Barrier: Tryg Denies Access to the Court System
7/10Legal Aid as Barrier (EN)
What Is Legal Aid Insurance?
Legal aid insurance is a standard coverage in Danish home insurance policies. It covers legal fees and court costs in civil disputes — typically about real property. Its purpose is to ensure the policyholder has real access to the court system, regardless of financial capacity.
The Claimant's Situation
The Claimant owned a property with massive structural damage: foundation cracks, asbestos, sewer breaks, moisture. Gjensidige refused to cover the damages under the title insurance (Cases 3-6). The Claimant therefore needed to file a lawsuit against the previous owner to recover repair costs.
The Claimant applied to Tryg for legal aid coverage for this lawsuit. Tryg refused.
Tryg's Rejection
Tryg sent a building expert to inspect the property. Afterwards, Tryg stated:
"At this time, no covered damage has been found."
Tryg closed the case and informed the Claimant that it could be pursued through the title insurance — that is, with Gjensidige, who had already rejected it.
The Appeal — and the Second Rejection
The Claimant complained to the Danish Insurance Complaints Board (case no. 102771). The Board ruled in Tryg's favour.
Subsequently, the Claimant sought legal aid from Tryg to bring Tryg's own decision before the courts. Tryg's legal aid department refused, citing policy terms section 3.2 combined with section 7.a:
"It is a condition for legal aid coverage that there is reasonable cause to bring the dispute before the courts, and that costs not incurred with reasonable cause are not covered by the legal aid insurance."
Tryg concluded: Since the Complaints Board has already handled the case, there is no "reasonable cause" to test it in court.
Tryg's Quality Department Upheld
The Claimant contacted Tryg's quality department, which responded:
"Nothing new appears to have emerged in the case that would justify the courts reaching a different result than the Insurance Complaints Board."
Why This Is a Problem
Tryg's reasoning creates a systematic barrier:
1. First block: Tryg's building expert finds no covered damage — despite independent experts having documented massive structural problems.
2. The appeal leads nowhere: The Complaints Board rules for Tryg, which Tryg then uses as evidence that the court case is hopeless.
3. The "reasonable cause" trap: Tryg argues there is no "reasonable cause" to bring the case to court because the Complaints Board has already decided it. But Complaints Board decisions are not legally binding — courts can reach a different result. By denying legal aid, Tryg effectively cuts off the Claimant from the only institution that can overturn the Board's decision.
The Statistics
Tryg's practice is not unique to this case. The Complaints Board database shows the following pattern for legal aid cases concerning real property:
- 83% insurer wins — the insurance company prevails in the vast majority of legal aid cases
- Only 17% claimant wins — consumers rarely have legal aid granted
For Tryg specifically, the numbers are even more skewed:
- 322 cases with insurer win (88%)
- 44 cases with claimant win (12%)
This means the vast majority of consumers who ask Tryg for legal aid are refused.
The Double Bind
Tryg's refusal cannot be viewed in isolation. It works in concert with Gjensidige's rejections:
- Gjensidige refuses to cover the damages under the title insurance
- Tryg refuses legal aid to pursue the case against the previous owner
The Claimant is in a situation where the damages are covered by neither insurer — and access to the court system, which could resolve the dispute, is effectively blocked.
What the Law Requires
The Executive Order on Good Practice for Insurance Distributors § 4 requires loyal treatment of the insured. Refusing legal aid on the grounds that the Complaints Board has already decided the case — when court proceedings are the only remaining option — is difficult to reconcile with loyal treatment.
The purpose of legal aid insurance is to ensure access to the court system. When the insurer systematically refuses coverage by arguing the case has already been tested administratively, it undermines the fundamental purpose of the insurance.