Do I need real estate legal protection?

Thank you for the many words. I "don't need" legal protection for my property. The post by Alex85 makes me think... do I even need legal protection? hm, so I'll give it some thought. So, thanks again

Legal protection insurance for your own house makes little sense.

It could be useful in traffic law, although the bill is usually paid by the opposing insurance if the other party is 100% at fault (which is rather rare). Another aspect under this category is contesting tickets, especially if you drive a lot and fast.

Legal protection for general contract law could make sense if you deal a lot with eBay and similar platforms. However, it basically makes little sense because in cases of outright fraud you won’t get your money back anyway. Lots of stress and work for basically nothing.

Then there is labor law. In a company where everything runs properly, you don’t need it. If you work in a company where workers are frequently dismissed like this, or where fluctuation is generally high, or labor protection laws are massively violated, then getting it makes sense. You just have to wait about 3 months afterward (read the conditions). Keep in mind: the first round before the labor court is always paid by each party themselves, no matter who wins.

In general, there is a saying: an insurance should cover unforeseen ruinous events. For example, a liability case because you ran a top football player’s heels with your shopping cart in the supermarket and he can never play again — and not to renew someone’s tablet...
And it’s the same with legal protection. It hardly prevents ruin because in case of damage it usually covers rather manageable sums. At around €250 per year for all mentioned legal protection insurances, you can also pay for a smaller legal dispute out of your own pocket every few years :)

there remains labor law.

As an alternative to legal expenses insurance, it is advisable to check membership in an association or a union.

In addition to payday's posting, which I agree with, I would like to mention that any type of liability insurance (private/car/boat/...) acts like a form of passive legal protection. That is, damage claims are assigned to the liability insurance itself, so that their army of lawyers can deal with whether the claim is justified at all. A private legal protection insurance is therefore unnecessary for such events.

Hello,

Unfortunately, a lot is getting mixed up here. Liability insurance does not cover costs like lawyer or court fees. In many cases, from my experience, it even makes sense to take out the relatively inexpensive supplementary tenant and property legal protection. Because neighbors sometimes change or problems with [WEGS] have also occurred. I therefore recommend this, but it must fit the individual case.

Liability insurance does not pay costs such as lawyer or court fees.

If someone makes a claim against me and I effectively assign this claim to a liability insurance policy, they do pay those costs. Because the claim is no longer my problem but theirs. If they consider it necessary to go to court, this incurs corresponding costs, which are no longer my concern.

Example: I had rented a holiday home abroad. During the rental period, damage occurred to the rented property, which in my opinion was not entirely my fault (pre-existing damage present). As a result, I was asked to fully settle the repair costs, just over €1,000. I passed the damage claim to my personal liability insurance for settlement. Based on my explanation, the insurance company offered the opposing party a 50/50 settlement, i.e., to split the damage. The opposing party wanted 100%, so the case ultimately went to court. The lawyers of the insurance company litigated, not me. I was no longer involved in the proceedings and only learned about its status through my own active inquiry—the claim had been effectively assigned. Whether the landlord’s demand was justified or not was no longer my issue, nor was contesting it in court.
That’s what I mean by passive legal protection. Liability insurers, if responsible, review claims and also defend against them if they are unjustified. All without private legal protection.

By the way, the court’s balanced decision was to split the costs 50/50. Who would have expected that?