Household insurance - "The fine print"

Hello,

I have already been about to finalize a household insurance policy twice, but after reading the "fine print," I stopped. I wanted to know how many of you actually read the "fine print" and to what extent "deviations" are tolerated? As an example, I use results from a comparison portal. After selecting some basic parameters, I receive a list and then choose up to three insurances to compare the details. The fine print is then presented separately in a PDF but apparently only mentioned "for the sake of completeness." I can fairly well determine which insurance is "better," but then I notice in the fine print that some information contradicts the actual circumstances on site - examples:

* Insurance sum >90,000 EUR. They say you shouldn’t state underinsurance because otherwise the underinsurance percentage is also deducted from the claim amount. But if you have a certain amount (e.g., 90,000 EUR), the "fine print" requires: alarm system present and must be armed when leaving the house + connection to security service, etc. Or window glass must be break-in resistant, or locking cylinders must be installed, etc.
* Natural hazard damages are only paid if appropriate structural measures are in place: backflow valves (maintenance must be verifiable!); non-covered pipes, etc.
* Insurance only with solid construction (which was never mentioned before in the comparison portal). If you have a wooden house, you pay. If there is damage, then tough luck?
etc.

Seriously?! Is it better to have insurance and then possibly accept a lower payout due to not fully meeting the conditions or not to take out insurance at all?

Seriously?! Is it better now to have insurance and possibly have to accept a lower payout due to not fully meeting the conditions, or not to take out insurance at all?

The alternatives are incomplete. I would look for the appropriate insurance. Sometimes the portals are simply not sufficient, then a specialist helps. By the way: what you wrote down is very helpful.

It seems like you are not searching correctly. For example, you can agree to a waiver of underinsurance. I also haven't read about an alarm system or similar. But look at the benefits, not the prices.

The problem with you seems to be that you only look at the price. Cheap = limitations. Normal price = normal service. Slightly more expensive than normal = comprehensive package.

The problem with you seems to be that you only look at the price.

Well, I had exactly no such impression - first looked at the price and then also at the services and found that some things did not fit optimally. Now a good solution is being sought.

Waiver of underinsurance is a good keyword. We had an extensive discussion with our (otherwise very pragmatic) insurance agent, who found it hard to understand our point of view. If we were to add up all our tangible assets at new replacement cost, we would be hopelessly underinsured as well. But (personal opinion alert): we are very sure that in the event of a total loss due to fire, for example, we would not even replace half of all that stuff. And that is not what I expect from my insurance. I want the essentials to be replaceable immediately at a decent standard. Everything else I can then do gradually from my current income or not. As an example of things that are not fully replaceable but very expensive, our outdoor equipment is one. We are massively overequipped... one third of that stuff would still be more than enough. Ok, one quarter ;) Edit: and the few valuable artworks are not replaceable anyway and would never be sold.

Not a portal, but go to the independent broker, and say what you want and he will do it. You cannot do everything and cheap is a different word than affordable.