Enlarge image
Right up to the ceiling:
where exactly did the water come from, how did it flow, what exactly was the cause?
The insured has to document and prove - if he forgets it in dire need, he sometimes has bad cards in the event of an insurance.
Photo: Meike Boeschemeyer / imago images / epd
manager magazin:
Mr. Schluckebier, the flood victims in Rhineland-Palatinate and North Rhine-Westphalia are still busy cleaning up, but the question of claims settlement will soon arise. According to the insurers, only 46 percent of private households are insured against dangers such as floods. Do most homeowners get nothing now - or can they hope for goodwill from the industry?
Wilhelm Schluckebier
: If no insurance cover for natural hazards was agreed, the insurer cannot simply pay. Otherwise, those who have insured themselves against this risk with their contributions would bear the costs. Real goodwill, i.e. payment without any obligation in terms of the reason, is therefore unlikely to be expected. Another question is whether the insurers behave in an accommodating manner when processing insured damage. So regulate quickly, unbureaucratically and not petty. I assume that this will predominantly be the case.
As with the 2013 disaster, there is again a dispute over natural hazard insurance. Economists advocate a compulsory policy adapted to the risks. The industry rejects this because it would become unaffordable or the risks for the insurer would be too great. Do you think that is wise, the industry could bring in a comparatively large amount of risk-free extra business?
Compulsory insurances intervene massively in private autonomy, this affects fundamental rights positions, so it must be well considered and justified.
In addition, there are various effects, for example, whether building in endangered areas is perhaps more carefree.
The discussion is therefore not limited to the insurers alone.
These are also companies that think and act economically.
After all, they must be able to meet their defined benefit commitments.
Therefore, one must have understanding for a balancing position.
Most homeowners have home insurance. Does this often lead to a dispute with the insurer in the case of heavy rain or in the case of damage caused by natural forces?
Enlarge image
Not even
your
shoes anymore:
a household or building insurance usually does not cover the damage without additional insurance against natural hazards
Photo: Markus Klümper / dpa
Disputes about the question of what damage caused by natural forces is rarely found in the complaints.
It does happen, however, that weather precipitation is often considered by policyholders to be sufficient for natural hazards in and of itself.
Occasionally, it is then expected that press reports submitted about massive rainfall or flooding in the region are sufficient to justify a claim.
In fact, however, the insured must prove that damage has occurred as a result of flooding, backwater, subsidence, landslide or similar events.
Most of those affected are unlikely to be able to do this.
In fact, it is sometimes difficult to prove in retrospect exactly where the water came from, how it flowed and what exactly was the cause.
Just because there was heavy rain and the cellar or house was subsequently flooded does not necessarily mean that there is an insurance claim.
In the event of a flood, to put it simply, the water must have run into the building from above and from the property.
Pushing in from the ground, for example, is not enough under the conditions.
Anyone standing knee-deep in the water in the cellar probably has other worries than clarifying or documenting them.
Yes of course.
Those affected are in an unexpected, exceptional situation.
Understandably, they do not think first of clarifying the circumstances, taking photos and securing evidence, i.e. documenting the course of events and the damage.
Nevertheless: With a mobile phone you can quickly take a few photos in such locations nowadays.
And in major loss situations like the current one, the general events are obvious and well-informed.
If, after heavy rain or floods, there is a conflict with the insurer because he does not want to pay, what exactly do the insured people complain about?
Those affected often consider the detailed evidence of a backwater or a flood requested by the insurer to be excessive. Criticism is also caused by the fact that in the event of damage, insurers differentiate between flooding on parts of the building and on the property. In the opinion of the complainants, insurers show insufficient understanding of their situation in such delimitation cases. They want more generosity. In cases that come to my mind as a mediator, there is also a dispute that the experts, who initially work on behalf of the insurer, sometimes estimate the scope and amount of damage to be lower than the craft businesses asked by the policyholder for cost estimates.
The federal and state governments want to help victims of the recent floods with emergency aid. That will hardly be enough to compensate for the actual damage. Against this background, do you expect more work for the insurance ombudsman or also an avalanche of litigation against insurers?
Experience has shown that some of the claims are clarified later, whether at the court or with our arbitration board. This is only a small fraction, however, and the cases go both ways. Beyond a purely proportional increase in the number of complaints - that means more damage, i.e. more disputes - I do not expect any particular effects. In any case, comparable events in the past have so far happened to us, and the insurance ombudsman has been in existence for 20 years, although a certain increase in the numbers has triggered no avalanche.