Building insurance with RuV - bad experiences!

You should not have contacted your insurance in any of the cases.

Yes, in hindsight one is often wiser. However, they could have recommended that to me after I informed them that these were each liability claims.

and where exactly is the problem now in taking out a new insurance? My legal protection insurance also canceled me after I was deceitfully misled during a house purchase...

All costs were covered by the opposing party (approx. 15,000 in attorney fees)....and yet....contractually, that is their right after all....

It was no problem to take out a new insurance policy. It was merely about the business practice of RuV ..... 21 years no damage and then 2 liability claims caused by others and they cancel the contract.... I know that it is their right as well...

Well, I think some people here have a wrong idea about how such an insurance works. Two building damages in one year will of course trigger corresponding mechanisms. This is not only the case with RuV, every building insurance would have canceled you. It is not a god-given right to always be insured for everything, this is only anchored in the mind of the average German. If the risk objectively worsens, cancellation will be made if possible, it's that simple. And yes, it is not wise at all to report smaller damages that you can also cover yourself. This applies not only to buildings, but also to personal liability insurance, household contents insurance, etc. In this case, I wouldn’t necessarily call them small damages, but of course it was a mistake to involve your own building insurance in liability damages caused by external parties.

That reminds me of a conversation between a somewhat wealthier relative and his friend. The friend was appalled that the relative did not have any insurance for the house. Fire, storms – all the things that could happen, and yet the house was not insured. The relative then said very dryly: Insurance is only something for poor people. The discussion was over.