House uninhabitable due to fire at neighbor's house - Who bears the costs?

Evening. Not our house, but my brother's. In the neighboring house of my brother, there was a fire last night; they were pulled out of bed by the fire department at night and then really only ran out of the house in their nightgowns with two small children. Thank God without smoke inhalation or other physical injuries. My brother told me that the house was already completely filled with smoke when they left, and the smoke was seeping through all the cracks in the walls and floors (a historic building at least 350 years old).

First of all, a big shout-out to the Heidelberg fire department... it would have been really bad just a few minutes later; there is no second escape route in these houses.

Today they were able to briefly enter the house accompanied and retrieve the essentials. An extreme smell of smoke was immediately noticeable in the house and even worse; small soot flags are hanging on many cracks and gaps in the walls and floors. In other words, the smoke really passed through every corner. So we are no longer talking about just wiping it down lightly and being done with it. Rather, presumably renovations lasting at least several weeks, possibly replacing floors, etc. Then probably several months. If the historic preservation authorities get involved, even longer....

Now the question arises, which insurance pays what and to what extent? This seems to be much less clearly regulated than with traffic accidents, and at first research online I found very different information. Are there fixed rules? Or does it really depend on whether the tenant in the neighboring house even has private liability insurance?

Best regards,

Andreas

In my opinion, the matter is quite clear. The fire insurance of the house that burned down will cover the damage. At least, that’s how I know insurances beforehand. It has nothing to do with liability.

Depends. A friend didn’t get anything because the fire 4 floors above was caused by a toddler (who had turned on the stove). However, it was only minor stuff. Apartment at home no monument no water just smoke and dust in every crack

It depends.

What does it depend on? Fire in the house = fire insurance. However, it may be that the insurance will reclaim the money from the customer. It depends on the situation. There are various court rulings on this.

At that time, it was rejected because the toddler was the cause. The duty of supervision was not violated. This may have changed; it was 20 years ago. Someone just has to have successfully challenged the rejection, including through legal action.

I find the question interesting and the matter unclear and am curious about the resolution. It would be new to me if the fire insurance also covered damage to neighboring buildings. A liability insurance presumably does not cover fire damage to neighboring buildings either, if no duties were violated. If the brother has building insurance, it will cover the damage. They might possibly try to reclaim the money. If the brother does not have building insurance, it could become expensive.