Residential building insurance reduces payout

You, I agree as well, but from the insurance company's perspective it is understandable if their assessor said, yes, there is damage and the amount of work is x hours, the craftsman's offer says it is 1.5*x hours and therefore the insurance company had (again: from their perspective) doubts about the stated amount of work, that they want to make sure that this effort was actually carried out. The customer is then the cheapest "neutral" person who can confirm that. It is silly, no question, especially after the policyholder then clearly confirmed the amount of work afterwards.

You know, I agree, but from the insurance company's perspective, it is understandable if their expert said, yes, there is damage and the scope of work is x hours, the craftsman's estimate says it is 1.5*x hours, and therefore the insurance company justified (again: from their perspective) doubts about the stated workload, wanting to make sure that this effort was actually carried out. The customer is then the cheapest "neutral" person who can confirm this. It is silly, no question, especially after the policyholder then clearly confirmed the scope of work afterwards.

But then the statement of the policyholder should carry more weight than the stamp and signature of the craftsman, who wants to get the money. And no, signing off on the hours is not mandatory; it is just something craftsmen like to do to protect THEMSELVES against the customer. At the same time, it is of course also good for the customer to insist on their seal on the invoice.

However, I also understood it to mean that the insurance criticizes the policyholder's missing signature.

A letter from the lawyer quickly creates facts …