Clause

Aviation and passive war risk clause in accident insurance

Expert-reviewed Updated: 2026-09-03 Expert-reviewed: 2026-09-04 (Guido Hesse, Hesse Group Holding AG) Version 0.1.0

The clause excludes, and partially reinstates, cover for accidents arising from acts of war and from the use of aircraft.

Clause type
Exclusion
Origin/Market
DACH – statutory
Favours
Insurer
Negotiability
Market standard

Standard wordings

  • GDV AUB 2020 clause 1.3 (active war events) and clause 5.1.4 (aircraft)

Purpose

The clause deals with two closely related risk exclusions in private accident insurance: accidents caused by active participation in acts of war or civil unrest, and accidents involving the use of aircraft or spacecraft. Both fields carry a substantially elevated and hard-to-price risk for the insurer and are therefore removed from the basic scope of cover as standard.

Effect and limits

Where the life insured actively takes part in war, war-like events, or civil unrest, cover is excluded entirely; by contrast, passive exposure as an uninvolved civilian is often carried back into cover. Accidents suffered as an occupant of an aircraft or spacecraft are generally excluded unless the life insured is travelling merely as a fare-paying passenger on a licensed commercial flight; involvement as a pilot, crew member, in air sports, parachuting, or aboard unlicensed aircraft remains excluded unless separately bought back.

Negotiation and practice

For frequent flyers and business travellers, it is essential that the carve-back for passengers on licensed scheduled and charter flights is clearly worded in the applicable conditions. Pilots, air-sports participants, and staff exposed to an occupational war risk regularly need dedicated add-on policies or buy-back agreements for an additional premium to close the gap between the basic exclusion and their actual risk profile. Group accident covers for field staff or expatriate employees should also have this clause reviewed and, where appropriate, negotiated.

The clause is not mandated by statute in any of the three DACH jurisdictions; instead, it follows broadly comparable market-standard model wordings in each country.