What must a building insurance pay in case of storm damage?

Hello everyone,

due to this week's storm "Frederike," the roof of my party room was damaged and partially detached. The roof was covered with bitumen corrugated sheets in the early 90s. As mentioned, the roof has now come loose and water has penetrated the ceiling. I have now spoken with my insurer. The building is covered by a floating replacement value insurance. The insurer told me that based on the photos, it is visible that the roof is not exactly new and that they would only cover a small part of the damage and not the full costs for re-roofing and repairing the water damage.

My question now is, is the insurer acting correctly and is it legally okay to pay only a small part, or is the insurer obligated to cover the damage fully due to the floating replacement value insurance? The building insurance includes fire, water damage from pipes, storm/hail damage.

Thank you!

Answers

We can hardly diagnose your damage remotely. However, it is true that a dilapidated (to put it bluntly) roof will not be completely replaced if it has deteriorated due to age. Storm or no storm. The insurance is not there to cover the maintenance obligations of the owner.

We can hardly diagnose your damage remotely. But it is true that a dilapidated (to put it bluntly) roof will not be completely replaced if it has deteriorated due to age. Storm or no storm. The insurance is not there to take over the maintenance obligations of the owner.

Correct!

Report the damage, the insurance will surely send an expert and then see what happens.

We also do not know the scope of coverage of the insurance.

Some think you have to squeeze everything out of an insurance that you can.

Example:
The storm Emma threw about a quarter of the gable roof of our house (I think 2009 ?) into the neighbor's garden, and the flying parts damaged additional tiles.
The fire department provided temporary assistance with tarpaulins, our insurance agent came on the same day, and the insurance appraiser came a week later.
We had to decide whether we would be compensated with a certain amount for a complete re-roofing and accept a high co-payment, or the roof would be patched and we would have no costs.
We chose the patching because we were already thinking about an extension back then.

Thank you. But then I wonder, what is the difference between the moving new value and the current value.

The current value is equal to the new value minus the depreciation resulting from age and wear.

As I understand it here, in a moving new value insurance the wear is also deducted from the compensation amount. Normally, I would understand that the insurance covers the costs of the damage to restore the previous condition, regardless of how old and worn the roof was, because without the storm the roof would still be intact and in place.

Basically, an insurance must of course pay if all conditions such as WS 8 etc. are met.

But: You, as the policyholder, are obliged to do everything to keep damage as low as possible or to prevent it from occurring in the first place. Otherwise, you can be accused of negligence or intent.

Your roof from the early 1990s is an inferior roof that is already over 25 years old. In addition, it is an outbuilding, which one can assume was roofed according to the regulations valid at that time. Since the weather regarding storms has deteriorated significantly in recent years, the owner must also take corresponding newer precautions. You probably did not do that. If it was not possible for you, the inventory in the shed must be protected accordingly from such weather, for example by storing it elsewhere or by covering it completely in addition. In this respect, the insurance is probably referring to the age of the roof and only paying a portion.

That is my assumption.