Building insurance with RuV - bad experiences!

We have had a building insurance with RuV for 21 years and have never reported a claim.

Last year, however, we had 2 water damages which were not caused by us.

These were liability damages caused by the perpetrators.

Case 1: Pipe burst at the neighbor's (semi-detached houses). The neighbor was on vacation. Our half of the house was also affected by this water damage. I reported the damage to RuV. They informed me that RuV would handle everything and then reclaim the money from the neighbor’s liability insurance. I also provided RuV with the claim number of the neighbor’s liability insurance.

Case 2: We had a pipe blockage outside the building. The pipe cleaner commissioned by us had to connect his cleaning device in our heating cellar. Therefore, he unplugged the power plug of the condensate lifting system for the heating. Unfortunately, he forgot to plug it back in. After 2 weeks, we noticed that the wallpaper in the hallway outside was peeling off and discovered the cause: the heating room was flooded because the lifting system overflowed. We reported the damage to the perpetrator, who informed us that his liability insurance would cover the costs. Additionally, we reported the matter again to RuV, who told us again that they would take care of everything and reclaim the amount from the perpetrator’s liability insurance. Here, too, we provided RuV with the claim number of the perpetrator’s insurance.

And now comes what we do not understand. The damage was settled by RuV, and now RuV has canceled us due to 2 claims in a year… even though neither of the damages was caused by us and RuV can recover the sum from the opposing liability insurances.

For this reason, we strongly advise everyone against taking out insurance with RuV.

Additionally, it should be noted that the RuV field service employee called us before the cancellation and offered to continue the insurance with a high deductible. Furthermore, we were reminded that we are “single-contract customers” and that we could still discuss the cancellation if we moved more of our insurances to RuV, such as liability, household contents, etc., from which, however, we refrained due to the business practices in the building insurance.

Awesome, especially since you are now on the bad list with other insurers. What does the ruv say about them being able to get the money elsewhere? How expensive were the damages?

The RuV says they don’t care whether we caused the damages or if they recover the money elsewhere. The fact is there were 2 damages and they were settled by the RuV, and in this case (also only with one damage) they can terminate the contract. The first damage was about €6000 and the second about €2000. However, we found a new insurer with whom we could get insured after explaining both cases and proving that we were not responsible. I can only advise everyone... STAY away from RuV. I have always laughed when people said RuV stands for "Räuber und Verbrecher" but apparently there is some truth to it

The case clearly shows: small claims are not handled through building insurance because the risk of cancellation is too high. I would always handle a broken window or a lightning strike on the TV myself and therefore choose correspondingly high deductibles. Our landlord experienced exactly that. First, a surge damage after a storm (300€ garage door opener) and then a minor storm damage. The insurance canceled the policy and now he’s having fun trying to get the 30-year-old house insured again (fortunately not our house).

Unfortunately, that was no small matter.... €6000 and €2000.....

The insurers simply have an internal claims ratio calculation. I was with Aachener for 8 years. Settled 2 burglaries, otherwise had everything there like accidents etc. because the claims handling was excellent. When I canceled, the agent also came at me with the stick about being ungrateful etc. my ratio would be 150% (8 years of premiums paid overall and 150% money back through claims).

A customer just needs to be able to do the math.