Otherwise weekly inspections of heating is sufficient in the absence of the policyholder usually. What specific supervisory duties in the particular case There are, will have to clarify in a process an expert if necessary. The policyholder is required to heat the building in the cold season and to control this. A violation of the policyholder against the heating and subject is in a literal interpretation of this insurance condition, almost any frost damage. Frost damage can only arise in a building if it is inadequately heated. He must heat the unbeheizbaren cellars according to the conditions of the insurance, although there are known to typically no radiators are available.
As a policyholder accused by the insurance, that he had incorporated into the unimproved attic, which the aqueduct was conducted, no radiator. A frost damage in heated rooms, insurance companies say it is not sufficient that the policyholders have set the heater at least on antifreeze. There have been but the frost damage, so that this inadequate heating was proven. At the policyholder was not checking the sufficient heating a heating failure. What are the insurance alone is, what risk, that can lead to frost damage, they have insured at all. The argument of the insurance processes, which safeguards of the policyholder the insurance contract to meet, always indicates that the risk of Frost is not insured.
Insurance companies require the policyholder, that he the adequate heating of the building so controlled that it can come not to frost damage or drained all water-bearing plants. The most courts of appeal followed this line of reasoning of the insurance, until the Federal Court finishes this case-law. The insurance contract a home owner can not infer that it is his obligation, “by all means to prevent frost damage”. It is therefore sufficient a “sufficient common” monitoring of the heating (BGH AZ.) IV ZR 233/06). The question is whether at the Insurance a major rethink will take place. The product of an insurance company is the hedging of the disaster case. The policyholder is willing to pay money for this safeguard. Due to the regulatory nature of many insurance companies in the event of damage, there is no interest on the insurance for many potential customers. A, it is not considered an insurance product to pay for money, which provides no services in the event of damage. It is therefore the task of insurance companies to confront the loss of confidence by a preventative damage control through information gathering and reconnaissance of the policyholder. To consider both in the interest of insurance companies and policyholders recognizable claims already be prevented in advance, causing the damage and liability do not. The article was written by lawyer Tarik Sharief from Berlin. More information on insurance law, tenancy law and traffic law are offered under rechtsklarheit.de