As noted within the question the wording of Article 1 (3) (a) IDD indicates that regarding the exemption from the scope of the IDD the seller of the good is not necessarily identical with the ancillary insurance intermediary mediating the insurance policy covering the specific good in question. Although the Commission does not explicitly address the question raised here in its answer to question 2218, the Commission's response to question 2218 indicates that ancillary intermediary under Article 1 (3) IDD and seller of the good do not have to be identical in general. We are aware that for the exemption from the scope of application of the IDD, the requirements of Article 2 (4) IDD must be met in addition to the requirements of Article 1 (3) IDD. However, the wording of Article 2 (4) IDD does not contain the requirement that the goods must have been sold by the ancillary intermediary in each individual case, but requires that the insurance mediation activity is ancillary to the principal professional activity. This would be the case in the example provided because it is to be understood that A only mediates insurance for goods and thus only in connection with his principal professional activity, the sale of goods. This ancillary activity requirement restricts his mediation activity. A, under the exemption of Article 1 (3) IDD, cannot distribute insurance policies other than those for the protection of goods according to Article 1 (3) IDD. Furthermore, A has the necessary knowledge of the goods from his principal professional activity and thus also with regard to the purpose of coverage for typical risks regarding breakdown, loss or damage of the good. This applies in particular if A also sells products of the same category himself. Then, with regard to the customer's need for protection in view of the scope of application of the IDD, it makes no difference whether the customer B has actually purchased the goods from A or insures goods with A that he (B) could also have purchased from A (but actually purchased from a third party).

In Q&A 1971 published on the EIOPA website, the European Commission has already fixed some elements regarding the same identity between the ancillary insurance distributor and the provider of the goods and services in case of an ancillary insurance distribution scheme.

Thus, on this Q&A, the European Commission states two important points :

• Firstly, based on article 2(1)(4) of the Insurance Distribution Directive (IDD), “ancillary insurance intermediaries are entitled to offer insurance products, other than life insurance an liability insurance products, which are complementary to a good or service they provide”
• Secondly and last but not least, the European Commission strongly states that an insurance product can be considered as being complementary to a good an service “if there is as sufficient temporal and factual connection between the provision of the good or service and the insurance coverage”. Based on examples given in the question, the European Commission underlines that notably travel agencies, which distribute insurance coverage in connection with travel services, “could propose liability insurance, possibly as part of a travel insurance package provided that (1) there is a sufficient connection between the insurance product and the travel services provided by the agency and (2) the provision of travel services is the principal professional activity of the agency.”