Table of contents:

Who is responsible for what? The ongoing dispute between insurance and insured
Who is responsible for what? The ongoing dispute between insurance and insured

Video: Who is responsible for what? The ongoing dispute between insurance and insured

Отличия серверных жестких дисков от десктопных
Video: When Insurance Companies Act in Bad Faith, What are your options? 2023, January

Insurance is taken out in order not to remain on your damage in an emergency. Most people are happy if this day never occurs. Because they know: in the worst case scenario, a year-long dispute begins as to whether the damage was really covered by the contractual terms or not. The Law and Tax Information Service of the LBS has collected nine judgments from German courts from the lowest to the highest instance. Among other things, it deals with the consequences of burglary theft, water damage and insurance coverage for neighborhood help.

Privacy fence is not part of the building

A storm had swept away and severely damaged a privacy fence that had been set up on the terrace of a family home. The owner then claimed the repair costs from his home insurance. The latter refused, because the privacy fence was not the classic enclosure of a building that the contract would have insured with, but only an additional optical protection of the property owner's privacy. The Ansbach district court (file number 5 C 516/17) agreed with this opinion and decided that the insurance industry did not have to pay. The repair of the fence had cost a good 1, 300 euros.

Stolen watches are not completely replaced

Every insurance contract contains certain clauses. For example, household insurance limited the amount of compensation for valuables in the event of burglary to 20, 000 euros - at least in the event that they were kept outside certain steel cupboards. But now robbers have stolen several expensive wristwatches worth around 90, 000 euros. The owner demanded the money from the insurance company - and was lost to the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court (file number 7 U 119/16). The insurance company transferred only 35, 000 euros and emphasized that it had already acted in a benevolent manner. The Civil Senate found that watches made from gold and other precious metals were actually subject to the restriction on valuables. The insurance company therefore no longer had to pay the rest.

Gas bottle explodes - tenant has to pay partial damage due to negligence

The policyholder's personal responsibility in the event of a claim plays a major role. For example, the tenant of an apartment carelessly, but not grossly negligent, caused a butane gas explosion (among other things because of the storage of a gas bottle without a protective cap). The building was severely affected by the explosion, and the repair work swallowed up almost 140, 000 euros. The Federal Court of Justice (file number IV ZR 52/14) found that the tenant had to pay half of the damage out of his own pocket.

Neighbor is not liable for water damage

It is common for good neighbors to help each other. So a man took over the irrigation of the garden during a spa stay of his neighbor. He turned the tip of the hose closed, but not the actual water supply. Due to a large amount of escaping water, there was considerable damage to the house. But the neighbor was not convinced by the Federal Court of Justice (file number VI ZR 467/15). The specific limitation of liability in the insurance contract only applied to intent and gross negligence, neither of which was the case.

Not all repairs are paid for after the break-in

A household contents insurance may be obliged to replace not only the stolen goods, but also the repair costs after a break-in. Burglars often damage the windows, doors and furniture of a property. However, this compensation has its limits, as the Higher Regional Court Hamm (file number 20 U 222/15) found. After an attempted theft, the insurance for the renewal of the bedroom window and a patio door came up. Other door leaves were only repaired. The judges determined that the quickest, but nevertheless safe and financially reasonable repair route had to be followed. Minor blemishes such as slight unevenness in the surface and an additional fitted locking piece would have to be accepted by the insured.

Sponge infestation: insurance has to pay

A property owner argued with his building insurance for the removal of damage after sponge infestation. The whole house was affected. However, the company only wanted to pay the part of the damage that was clearly proven to have occurred within the term of the contract. But the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig-Holstein (file number 16 U 3/15) did not meet this. In this case, the insurance cover applies to the entire sponge infestation.

Cat must not rage as it wants

Sometimes animal liability insurance is also required to compensate for damage to a property. This was the request of a cat owner whose animal had damaged the rubber seals on the patio door in his rented apartment. The Offenbach District Court (file number 33 C 291/14) did not see any insured event here. The ruling said that a tenant should not switch his cat over and do what she wanted. If he does not intervene, it is an excessive use of the rented property and the tenant must pay for it himself.

Water damage: pipes on the roof terrace are not part of the building

Water damage is the worst after a fire, which can happen to a homeowner. The renovation of the building is usually very expensive. This is why there is often bitter argument in court about who is liable. The Kammergericht Berlin (file number 6 U 166/13) had to deal with burst water pipes (for watering plants) that lay under the wooden floor of a roof terrace. The lawyers decided that these pipes were not covered by insurance because they were located above the roof and therefore outside the building.

Backflow damage - yes or no?

Elementary damage insurance had to be liable for backflow damage according to the contract. You can only speak of this if water leaks from the pipe system of the insured building. If the pipe system itself can no longer absorb a large amount of rainwater, the Higher Regional Court in Hamm (file number 20 U 23/17) ruled that it was not a backflow damage.

Popular by topic