Subject: GDPR & Insurance Act Disclosure Request - KBC Legal Protection (C149.1111.0793 / OMBSCR 2025-04305)
Dear Sir or Madam,
Through Test-Achats / Test-Aankoop, I submit this formal complaint to KBC Insurance NV (KBC Legal Protection) concerning the management of my legal-protection file. Test-Achats is copied for transparency and follow-up.
(1) Context
(1) Date of loss: 14 November 2021
(2) Expert report: Lexa Expertises (23 August 2022) - confirmed the liability of the driver insured by AG Insurance.
(3) Partial payment: NN Insurance paid € 7 331.98 on 26 August 2022 for building damage.
(4) Outstanding indemnities: remain unpaid by NN and AG Insurance; reimbursement of legal-protection expenses refused by KBC Legal Protection.
(5) Bailiff reference: B261180 - mise en demeure 1 August 2025.
(6) Ombudsman file: OMBSCR 2025-04305.
(2) Requests to KBC Insurance (with Test-Achats monitoring)
(1) Scope of the legal-protection guarantee
On what contractual or legal basis does KBC Legal Protection deny reimbursement of legal expenses after receiving complete documentation and a bailiff’s notice, relying only on a prior “negative opinion” or on linguistic preference?
(2) Articles 156–157 Insurance Act (2014)
These articles guarantee the insured’s free choice of lawyer and the independence of the legal-protection insurer.
Please explain how KBC’s reliance on a legal opinion previously issued by the same lawyer for another insurer (Maître An Lingier, acting under an NN mandate) complies with these provisions, Solvency II Art. 201 (2), and CJEU Sneller C-442/12.
Possible conflict of interest - Maître An Lingier
Maître Lingier initially acted under a legal-protection mandate for me, financed by NN Insurance, in 2022. Her opinion was later relied upon by NN Insurance to limit compensation, by AG Insurance to resist direct action, and by KBC Legal Protection to refuse coverage.
This sequence raises an objective question regarding compliance with the independence and free-choice requirements of Arts. 156–157 Insurance Act and Solvency II Art. 201 (2).
For transparency, I attach the most recent letter sent to the Bâtonnier / Brussels Bar Ethics Committee, filed for information only, confirming that an ethical review is pending.
(3) Article 95 Insurance Act - Duty to motivate
When refusing or limiting coverage, an insurer must provide a reasoned, article-specific written decision identifying the contractual clauses and facts relied upon.
Please provide that motivation. A generic statement such as “contractually excluded” does not satisfy Art. 95.
(4) Language and accessibility obligations
May KBC require Dutch-only correspondence when the insured resides in the bilingual Brussels-Capital Region and has submitted documents bilingually, or does such a requirement conflict with IDD Directive 2016/97, Arts. 16–18 on fair and accessible complaint handling?
(5) Transparency of legal-expense spending
Under Arts. 60 and 95 Insurance Act and IDD Arts. 16–18, is KBC Legal Protection prepared to disclose - at least to Test-Achats or the Ombudsman - the amount of legal and expert fees it spent contesting this claim?
It appears that the insurer may have incurred higher external-counsel costs than the indemnity originally claimed, which would contradict principles of proportionality and fair treatment of insured persons.
Please confirm whether this information can be released and whether refusal would contravene KBC’s transparency and motivation duties.
(6) GDPR rights - Access, rectification and processing restriction
Pursuant to GDPR Arts. 12 (3), 15 and 16, I request full disclosure of all documents, opinions, correspondence and internal communications concerning my case, including those prepared by external law firms.
I also formally object under GDPR Art. 21 to any further processing or sharing of my personal data - including the objectivity-clause opinion - without my explicit consent. This includes any dissemination to other insurers or external law firms not bound by my policy. Please confirm that KBC has complied with its GDPR obligations to respond within one month and to provide complete, unredacted copies of the data concerned.
(3) Legal basis and consequences
(1) GDPR Art. 12 (3): obligation to respond within one month - deadline expired.
(2) GDPR Arts. 15–16: right of access and rectification of personal data.
(3) Insurance Act Arts. 35, 60 and 95: duties of clarity, co-operation and reasoned decision.
(4) Judicial Code Arts. 154–157: duty of the legal-protection insurer to bear lawyer’s fees.
(5) Solvency II Art. 201 (2) and IDD Arts. 16–18: obligations of transparency and fair treatment.
(6) Unless a complete response is received within 10 calendar days (by 19 November 2025), this matter will be reported to the Ombudsman des Assurances, the FSMA (Ref. COC 20250930-21526) and, if necessary, to the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA - Ref. L-25-13) for systemic review.
(4) Conclusion
This request is made respectfully but firmly under all legal reservations. Its purpose is to ensure that KBC Legal Protection’s actions comply with the GDPR and the Belgian Insurance Act and that consumer rights are fully respected.
Kind regards,
Michał Tratkowski
Negen Provincieslaan 49 - 1083 Brussels
mxt@bu.edu | +32 484 931 392
Policy: KBC Legal Protection C149.1111.0793 | Bailiff: B261180 | Ombudsman: OMBSCR 2025-04305
