Residential building insurance: living area vs. value 1914 / experiences R&V, BSG

Hello everyone,

I am currently looking for a new residential building insurance for my two-family house from the 1970s and have two tariffs for comparison. The first insurance (R&V) calculates the premium based on the living area (without a fixed insurance sum), while the second insurance (BSG = Basler Service Gesellschaft) determines the value 1914 and from that, calculates the insurance value and the premium.

My questions:
- What are generally the advantages and disadvantages of the two premium calculations (living area vs. value 1914) in the event of a claim and which one is rather recommended and why?
- In the case of the living area model, for example in the event of a total loss of the building (e.g. fire), must the building be rebuilt exactly the same (same area) or are the costs reimbursed that would be incurred for a reconstruction of the same size?
- Have you had any positive or negative experiences with either of the two insurers R&V or Basler Service Gesellschaft?

Thank you in advance.
Potile

Regarding reconstruction: according to the same type and quality. But of course appropriate to the current standard... therefore, value increases or upgraded features, if available, should also be noted in the policy.

Regarding premium calculation: even with R+V there is a fixed trial sum running in the background, please simply inquire there. Unfortunately, this is never shown in the offers, but it does exist and is important for making comparisons; overinsurance is also useless.

Advantage of the 1914 calculation: here the calculation method is comprehensible.

Ideally, a detailed building valuation is carried out, but nowadays simple programs that query the key data and spit out a result after 2 minutes are common practice. The company then adheres to this, meaning it is just as binding as the detailed valuation.

Both companies are reputable, but so are most. The difference lies 95% with the intermediary ;)