sirhc
2016-06-02 07:55:54
- #1
Construction all-risk insurance is, in my opinion, a luxury insurance – we wouldn’t have needed it retrospectively either.
For example, it is still not 100% clear to me what it is really necessary for. If something happens to any trade that is still in progress, or even if it is completed but not yet handed over, wouldn’t that still be covered by the executing craftsman’s insurance?
The bank requires protection against fire, storm/hail, and water damage. It is not quite clear to me whether this applies from the completion of the house or already during the construction phase.
Provider A: Building insurance = shell fire insurance during construction + protection against storm/hail as soon as the roof is on + protection against water damage as soon as the plumber has installed it. Free until the completion of the house, without construction all-risk package.
Provider B: Building insurance = only shell fire insurance during construction. You have to add the construction all-risk package if you want protection against storm/hail and water damage.
Which brings me back to the initial question of whether the protection required by the bank must already exist during the construction phase. If yes, provider A offers this sufficiently and free of charge during construction, whereas with provider B you have to pay hundreds of euros for it immediately. Also, provider B switches to building insurance as soon as the building shell is closed, long before the house is completed. That would mean: paying 460 EUR for 8 – 10 weeks of protection while the building shell is constructed, then it switches and over 400 EUR for the first year of building insurance become due again.
At least that’s how it appears to me, if I understand it correctly at all.