Consequential water damage - Experiences with insurance?

The insurance restores the original condition. If repairs are not reasonable, then the entire floor will be renovated or an entire wall/room will be painted. It becomes difficult exactly when the opinions of the craftsmen who prepare the cost estimate for you and the opinion of the insurance differ significantly. Then they send an expert. Of course, the prerequisite is that you actually have the corresponding insurance.

what amount is it about?

with us, parquet was repaired, paint on the wall, silicone and frame + door warped there were replaced and a faucet that was defective.

everything 2,200 gross.

with you it should be manageable

if the insurance then only covers 70 % of 1,000 costs, the stress is not worth it and you pay the rest and that’s that

I'm with HilfeHilfe. The expected amount of damage is really manageable. Just wait and see what the insurance says.

I agree with HilfeHilfe. The expected amount of damage is really manageable. Just wait and see what the insurance says.

then just like me ^^

My question then would be, would it be lawful for the insurance to pay only specifically for this small cheeky wallpaper, this small piece of parquet along with the installation, and then we would have to decide ourselves whether we want to live with such a strange appearance in the house or not? Or is the common practice rather that it is clear that then at least the whole one wall must be newly wallpapered and painted or at least so much parquet renewed that it does not immediately catch the eye visually?

1. Google:

"Water damage - What extent does the building insurance cover? 07/31/2017 14:36"

2. Keyword possibly "deduction new for old" (in building insurance)

= 100% replacement is only given for new things, not old stuff – otherwise, one would be better off after the damage than before. Therefore, the aforementioned deduction should be made if the partial "smart-repair" method does not work out. The basis is usually a KVA (cost estimate). (The VAT is only reimbursed if a professional company actually does this on an invoice, § 249 II 2 Building Code).

3.
Which insurance is it specifically about? Household contents or building insurance?

[QUOTE="Mizit, post: 231864, member: 28522"]

Unfortunately, we had not lived in the house for four weeks when we had the first major damage. To explain briefly, the shower tray sags slightly at one spot under load. Even with the few showers we had taken, we noticed this "brief give" a few times but didn't think much of it. There was also no corresponding indication of this from the previous owner. This sagging causes a crack in the silicone joint on the wall. Depending on how the shower spray is positioned, quite a bit of water runs in there, and that exact spot under the shower was apparently not properly sealed with silicone on the wall. As a result, water ran into the ceiling and came out again in the hallway on the ground floor.

1. A shower tray must not move. It should be replaced. Otherwise, the damage will happen again.
2. The silicone joint is not a waterproofing; there is a separate composite waterproofing for that.
3. Has the moisture in the masonry and screed already been measured? What type of screed do you have in the bathroom and the adjacent rooms?
4. The building insurance is not responsible, and I would also be surprised if the contents insurance paid anything. But okay...

Maybe it was not only due to a leak but also a damage in the pipe system. Therefore, this must be thoroughly checked.