Consequential water damage - Experiences with insurance?

Hello, I don’t know if my concern is right in this subforum, sorry if not:

Unfortunately, we had not lived in the house for even four weeks when we had the first major damage. Briefly explained, the shower tray sinks in slightly at one spot under pressure. Even with the few showers taken, we noticed a kind of “short give” several times but didn’t think much of it. There was also no corresponding indication of this from the previous owner. Due to this sinking, a crack has appeared on the wall at the silicone joint. Depending on how the shower jet is placed, a significant amount of water runs in there, and apparently, this spot under the shower was not properly sealed with silicone on the wall. As a result, water ran into the ceiling and came out again on the ground floor from the hallway.

Damage: from an already existing drilling hole, i.e., a superficial hole in the wallpaper, water was dripping strongly, and above it, over an area of about 40 x 50 cm, water ran down in rivulets. This water has now dried into the wallpaper again. Nevertheless, dark spots are visible; the area around the hole has continued to open up. It’s obviously not a nice sight, even though it’s not an extremely large surface area.

In addition, for a while until we noticed it upon our return, a fairly large puddle stood on the oak parquet and also ran under the baseboards at that spot. A very new carpet, thick and fluffy, was also well underwater at one small spot (about 60 x 5 cm). Of course, it is still usable, but you can see that it was soaking wet there.

The carpet is annoying, but the damage to the wall and the parquet is obviously much worse. Since the silicone joint as the cause of damage is not covered by the building insurance, we will presumably have to shoulder a large part of the costs anyway – after 15 showers in the house, of course, a great joy. We do not want to leave the parquet or the wallpaper damage as it is. Of course, that is not our intention either; we do not want the insurance to pay for a completely new parquet floor or a complete renovation of the hallway. But: we can hardly just retape and repaint 1 ½ strips of wallpaper, regardless of who does the work, can we? The other paintwork is several years old, and it’s also questionable whether we could get exactly this wallpaper anywhere again?? How is that even logistically possible? Whether we can get exactly this parquet again, no idea, but that will probably be more solvable than the wallpaper and the color shade. But even here: theoretically, I can renew one long baseboard and renew the parquet only on 3 sqm, but the difference will be devastating, right?

Annoying! But I don't know what you want to know. Whether or how much your insurance pays, you have to clarify with them or what your insurance stipulates. I know it (for household insurance) so that the entire area is paid or replaced. For damage over €709, an expert usually comes.

We are currently in the process of clarifying the insurance matter and are appalled at how the insurance company is trying, intentionally or unintentionally?, to drag this out. After all, we still have a second shower, which maybe not everyone has?! We have already sent photos, now they say they need more photos of the damage and cost estimates for the necessary repair work. This is where it starts for me, we need to inquire about this more precisely, but experiences would of course be interesting: the damage in the hallway itself, as mentioned, concerns a fairly manageable spot, the same applies to the damage to the parquet. Purely the amount of wallpaper or the one baseboard or the 2 m² of parquet will be manageable in terms of cost and probably not worth the whole effort with the insurance, but how do you handle it financially if the financial damage is mainly driven up by the fact that, for aesthetic reasons, I can hardly renew and repaint just one strip of wallpaper or, with a wooden floor over 20 years old with the corresponding appearance, renew only a fraction of the area? My question therefore is: would it be legal for the insurance to pay only quite specifically for this small cheeky wallpaper, this small piece of parquet including installation, and then we have to decide ourselves whether we want to live in the house with such a strange appearance or not? Or is common practice rather that it is clear that at least the entire wall has to be newly wallpapered and painted or at least as much parquet renewed so that it does not immediately catch the eye visually?

The insurance settles the damage. And the damage is what is needed to restore the original condition.

The insurance covers the damage. And the damage is what is needed to restore the original condition.

Correct, it also always depends on whether you chose a cheap insurance or the premium package.

This is where it backfires again.

Especially with such damages, policyholders like to cheat because they think they need to make a profit on insurance too.

@

The insurance settles the damage. And the damage is what is needed to restore the original condition.

But how are you supposed to restore the "original condition" in such a case? It starts, as I said, with me not knowing exactly where to get THAT wallpaper from, and with 22-year-old parquet flooring, I see little chance of getting EXACTLY THAT. Originally, referring specifically to "the material that was there before," is hardly feasible, right?

: We took over the building insurance of the previous owner, possibly naively, without dealing with all the detailed questions beforehand, but it is really not the cheapest policy. Under which clause could such detailed questions be regulated?

I can imagine that some policyholders might see an opportunity here to avoid the insurance. I can only assure you that this is really not our interest. For us, this whole situation is annoying and upsetting; the existing condition was good enough for us, we had lived there less than 4 weeks and now already have at least a visibly damaged hallway. I don’t want to get any money that we are not entitled to, but it’s also clear that we won’t be putting two different wallpapers on the walls or two different floors, right? But I could also imagine that an insurance company would say, okay, specific material costs for so many square meters of wallpaper and parquet, yes, but not more, and if you want to renovate completely, you have to pay yourself.