Which of you has disability insurance?

I consciously decided against disability insurance because I consider the risk of becoming permanently disabled in my profession very unlikely. I went through the usual considerations and hardly anything justifies long-term disability, or then the payment.

As an engineer, I earn above average and, as a former student, I am used to living with little money (in an emergency). Furthermore, disability insurance only pays the difference between the state pension and the agreed amount. Also, about 40% of all insured have to sue their disability insurance because the insurance naturally does not want to pay.

I calculated it like this:
I pay contributions for 30 years. Multiply by 12 months = 360 payments of €50 each (which is really not much for disability insurance) = €18,000 (without interest or anything else).
If I receive €500 per month from the insurance in case of a claim (because the rest comes from the state anyway), I would have money for about 3 years (36 months) by hypothetically saving those €50 per month. Plus the 1 year until it even gets to that point and the fact that one does not necessarily need the full €500, you can easily survive 5 years with the money saved until the disability insurance would have really been worthwhile.

In fact: disability insurance is definitely sensible if you really become permanently disabled. Most people are only unable to work for a certain period (e.g., sick with rehab, etc.) and could just live on their savings.

You can also make it easy for yourself: EVERY insurance calculates its price in relation to what you get and the probability of occurrence so that it is always unprofitable for the insured (so-called odds). Because the insurance wants to make money and also has administrative costs.
Every risk insurance is basically like playing the lottery. Only that you insure exactly the winning case. (Very unlikely, but a high sum).

Whether it is worth it for someone has to be decided individually. One thing is definitely right: if then as early as possible!!!!!!

How do you come to the conclusion that the pension from a private disability insurance is offset against the EMI pension?! That is not correct. You may have to pay taxes if you are overall above the tax-free allowance, but everyone else does that too.

And what do you mean by "1 year until it even happens"? A (good) policy also pays retroactively from the onset if the disability is only determined later. The same applies to the issue of a "temporary disability" – a good policy pays if you are expected to be disabled for at least 6 months, regardless of whether you return to your job in 2 years, 10 years, or never again.

Every insurance company calculates so that it makes a profit in the end, that is correct; otherwise, the system would not work. However, you do not take out insurance to generate a return, so that is already the wrong approach. The fundamental question is always, "Can I manage financially on my own if XY happens?" Those who answer "Yes" do not need insurance (a typical example: a single person does not need term life insurance). But, of course, everyone has to answer this question for themselves.

When it comes to suing: Those who look carefully before concluding a contract can certainly pay attention to corresponding formulations (better to have them reviewed) that later make it unnecessary or at least guarantee success. There is simply a strange mentality here – this entire forum has thousands of posts where people think for months, sometimes years, to make sure they don’t make even a single mistake in the topic of house building that might cost them a few thousand or tens of thousands. But when it comes to insurance where it often involves hundreds of thousands, every effort is avoided (private health insurance is also a great example here). This may backfire later, and stories like "I know someone whose insurance didn’t pay" arise.

I am not a fan of insurance companies, and I am extremely skeptical of most products. But there are a few "life risks" where I consider coverage sensible. These are certainly those that are already state-mandated anyway, such as unemployment insurance/health insurance/pension insurance and photovoltaic (or motor vehicle liability insurance), but also private liability and disability insurance... and as a father, of course, term life insurance (especially with a mortgage backing you). These risks simply cannot be borne by a non-millionaire. You can convince yourself that it won't happen to you and statistically, for most, it probably won’t, but if you are among the unlucky, you should be very aware of the consequences. …Calculations like "Let that be 500 euros, then maybe with inflation it will be amount X" are the wrong approach.

We both also have a BU (and a Risiko-Leben will follow shortly). Likewise, a notarially certified power of attorney for precautionary measures, as well as an advance healthcare directive. I avoid risk & want to have everything secured as much as possible before a damage event occurs.

I earn above average as an ING and, as a former student, I am used to living with little money (in an emergency). Furthermore, the disability insurance only pays the difference between the state pension and the agreed amount. Additionally, about 40% of all have to sue for their disability insurance, as the insurance naturally does not want to pay. i

We are here in the house building forum, so I assume that you are building, have built, or intend to build a house. To claim that because you managed with little money as a student, you can still get by with little money, I consider negligent.

There is a prohibition of unjust enrichment with the disability insurance, that is true. However, usually half of the reduced earning capacity pension is taken into account when calculating the insured amount.

There is a prohibition of unjust enrichment with disability insurance, that's correct. However, when calculating the insured sum, one usually takes into account (generally half of the reduced earning capacity pension).

There is no longer a prohibition of unjust enrichment with disability insurance. The insurer probably only factors in any other benefits in order to prevent disability insurance from being financially too attractive for the policyholder. There have already been cases where someone grabbed for the shredder with an accident insurance

Edit: Half-truths corrected

Right, my mistake. Now that you mention it, I remember it too. I consider it unlikely that the insurer will accept a disability insurance with a significantly higher pension as income.