Building insurance with RuV - bad experiences!

That reminds me of a conversation between a somewhat wealthier relative and his friend. The friend was horrified that the relative had no insurance for the house. Fire, storm – all the things that could happen, and yet the house was uninsured. The relative just said dryly: Insurance is only for poor people. The discussion was over.

Well, fate is definitely involved. But some don’t get it or can’t afford to pay for it.

Just as policyholders want to insist on their contractual rights, the insurance company is entitled to do so as well. You might think it’s stupid when it’s used, but that’s just how it is.

My experience with RuV insurance is just as bad. The second claim immediately led to the termination (without consultation or premium adjustment) of the building insurance. I am now supposed to continue paying the household insurance to RuV after the trouble caused by the termination... I will cancel this at the next appointment if they don't want their customers...

Have good experiences

An insurance is ultimately a guild where Hans stands up for Franz and Frauke for Hauke. - If one causes too many damages, the others pay for it. Therefore, it makes sense, even if in individual cases as described here unfair, for a company to develop mechanisms to kick out lazy customers. Otherwise, it burdens all the others. I like to choose insurances whose distribution channel does not run through verivox or the like, because in the end you pay for the contract shoppers or the smart "I just need to have a claim, I've already paid for 10 years." types. my/our insurances are all broker insurances, whose distribution channel consists only of independent brokers. Thus, their customer portfolio is mainly a mix of freelancers, self-employed, and civil servants. This is a guarantee for good premiums and solid management by the companies. Therefore, for cars we have Condor, for the house the Badische Allgemeine.

I also don't understand why you report claims to your insurance when it has nothing to do with it and the damage was clearly the responsibility of the perpetrator? What was the reason for that?

I also don't think it's very fair that an insurance policy gets canceled even though they didn't have to settle anything. But that's their right, just like you can cancel every year yourself. In the future, I would definitely refrain from reporting damages that have nothing to do with the insurance.