Residential building insurance as a non-owner

Hello everyone, I have a somewhat special question. It is about the regular residential building insurance. Situation:

Semi-detached house. Owner according to the land registry is my father. He lives in one half, the other half is inhabited by my girlfriend, my son, and me. Not married. My girlfriend and I have a lifetime gratuitous right of residence registered in the land registry. We have fully renovated our half at our own expense. Each "party" has taken out residential building insurance for "their" half (with the same insurance company). Each is also the policyholder according to the policy for the respective half of the house.

Now someone told us that since my girlfriend and I are not owners according to the land registry, we are basically not insured. Residential building insurances can only be taken out by owners.

Does anyone know about this, maybe also legally secure?

Thank you

Hi,
how about simply calling the insurance company and asking? And having it confirmed IN WRITING that the situation is known and acceptable to the insurance company?

Best regards,

Andreas

As a rule, only the owner of a property registered in the land register can legally conclude such insurance. It is therefore possible that the insurance company could cause problems in the event of a claim. They are happy to take money, but reluctant to pay out.

So first contact the insurance, and if in doubt, your father must take out the insurance for both of you and you pay him the money.

Hi,
how about just calling the insurance and asking? And having them CONFIRM IN WRITING that the situation is known and acceptable to the insurance?

Best regards,

Andreas

We are doing that anyway in parallel :-). But even our broker couldn’t give us an exact answer.

As a rule, only the owner registered in the land register of a property can legally secure such an insurance. So it might really be the case with you that the insurance could find a catch in the event of a claim. They’re happy to take the money, but not to pay out.

Therefore, first contact the insurance, and if in doubt, your father has to take out the insurance for both of you and you pay him the money.

Unbelievable if that is really the case. Then the insurance (in this case the broker) actually sold us an insurance knowing (or rather not knowing) that it wouldn’t be paid out anyway, since the broker is well aware of the circumstances. In principle, it’s not a problem if we run the entire insurance through my father, BUT then he would also get the money in the event of a claim. Of course, we have borne the costs of the core renovation + garden (just like a new build). Naturally, my father would pay us the money in full as things stand today, but what if one day we don’t get along so well anymore? Then I’d be left empty-handed.

And regarding the topic that only the owner can legally take out an insurance: why does that work with cars? I can even insure my girlfriend’s life without being the “owner.” But it’s not supposed to work with a house. I don’t get it.
I will report what the regional office of the insurance says about this. I am now expecting a callback shortly.

This is exactly where the problem lies: If the beneficiary is NOT the registered owner, there will be trouble in case of emergency.

Basically, it is no problem if we run the entire insurance through my father, BUT he would then also receive the money in the event of a claim. Of course, we have borne the costs of the major renovation + garden (just like a new build). Naturally, my father would pay us the money in full as of today, but what if you don’t get along so well anymore.

Well, you have that problem anyway, insurance or not, that you have invested a lot of money in property that belongs to your father, which therefore doesn’t belong to you. If it is important to you what happens if you don’t get along so well with your father anymore, you should possibly talk to him about buying or transferring the half you live in to you. (You should of course clarify the insurance issue either way, that’s true too)