Residential building insurance reduces payout

No. The insurance wants the craftsman to provide proof with a signature and stamp, in which he certifies that he has performed the hours. Because apparently, the expert and the insurance had already assumed beforehand that the effort was overestimated, meaning fewer hours would suffice...

And you can twist and turn it however you want. If something is not signed, it does not count. No matter how much he swears and assures.

The insurance and I might well ask what the problem is with getting the craftsman's signature for his work... If that is a problem, then it is suspicious.

No customer leaves my premises before I have a signed confirmation for my work.

No. The insurance company wants proof from the craftsman with a signature and stamp, certifying that he has performed the hours. Because the expert and the insurance company had apparently already assumed beforehand that the effort was overestimated, meaning fewer hours would suffice... And you can twist and turn it however you want. If something is not signed, then it does not count. No matter how much he insists and assures. The insurance company and I would probably ask what the problem is in getting the craftsman’s signature for his work... If that is a problem, then it is suspicious. I don’t let a customer leave the premises before I have signed for my work.

I find it quite astonishing with what self-evidence you present this here and supposedly create facts. One could get the impression that you also work for an insurer. However, much of your statements are not correct. You can have an opinion on it and express it. But you do not do that; instead, you use the whole thing to supposedly profile yourself as an expert and to portray me or the craftsman here as to blame and thus supposedly stupid. In the style of “Nyah-nyah”: your own fault. I also had the pleasant opportunity this morning to talk to a lawyer about it, because we are still disputing with someone about a trade from our new construction. He also said that the insurance company has no claim to reduce anything here. And the more I think about it, the more I see both myself and the craftsman as absolutely not at fault. There is no legal regulation that, for work done on evidence, the reports are only valid with a signature. That is complete nonsense! This is purely about documentation. It would be different if the insurance company and I took the position that the scope of work does not correspond to the scope on the timesheet! In that case, the craftsman would have a problem of proof without a signature. The insurance company can formally raise concerns if the signature is missing. But since I, as the only person present, can confirm the scope 1:1 and have also done so in writing to the insurance company, the missing signature is completely irrelevant. The timing of my confirmation or of the report is also completely irrelevant. Furthermore, it is so that the insurance company has approved all three trades 1:1 with the tender amounts in a letter to me! There is nothing in that letter saying that the work may only be carried out on evidence. The expert only spoke with the trades and asked me by email to supervise the scope of the work. But neither the form nor the timing was specified here. Accordingly, it is clear: the insurance company is trying to cut costs! And doing so on my or the craftsman’s back! I also want to emphasize once again: it was not the craftsman who suddenly remembered “weeks” later to send the report. The insurance company received the reports two days after the invoice was submitted.

How should you proceed now? Or did the lawyer take care of that right away?

How high is the deduction amount of the insurance?

Just write a letter to the insurance clearly stating that there is no entitlement to reduce the payment. At the same time, set a deadline for the payout. They are overall already past the 5-week period that an insurance company has to carefully review and pay out. It was said that this should also work without legal assistance. This concerns money between 1,000 and 2,000 €.

The insurance company and I might well wonder what the problem is with getting the signature from the craftsman for his work... If that is a problem, then it is suspicious.

The insurance company releases an offer. Exactly this offer and no other is performed. The contractor confirms this to the insurance company. The craftsman's report and the contractor's statement are consistent.

What exactly would be evaluated differently if the report also had the craftsman's stamp?
It is rather not fraud if one strictly adheres to the previously approved scope of services.

If the information from the OP is correct, it looks pretty clear: With the very German stamp argument as a substitute for a formal error, money is to be saved. Or no, to be paid by others.

The insurance company releases an offer. Exactly this offer and no other will be paid. The contractor confirms this to the insurance. The craftsman's report and the contractor's statement are identical.

What exactly would be evaluated differently if the report also had stamps from the craftsman?
It is hardly fraud if one strictly adheres to the previously approved scope of services.

If the poster's information is correct, it looks quite clear: With the very German stamp argument as a substitute for a formal error, money is to be saved. Or no, paid by others.

That’s exactly right! Then you shouldn’t be surprised if a craft business refuses or doesn’t even create an offer. I am also just simply extremely disappointed with the insurance. We chose the insurance because they were winners at Finanztest. That’s how you can be fooled. You can see here that only the scope of services and the price are evaluated, but the settlement process is not taken into account.