Berlin A mandatory insurance against natural hazards for buildings desired by the federal states will not be implemented by the federal government for the time being. Federal Minister of Justice Marco Buschmann (FDP) told the Handelsblatt: “In a time of extreme financial burdens on private households, we should keep our hands off everything that makes living in Germany even more expensive.”
Such a duty would be constitutionally “probably possible,” Buschmann explained, but added: “Politically, I think it’s wrong.” There was a vote within the federal government on this.
In the Prime Ministers’ Conference (MPK) last Thursday, Buschmann spoke out against compulsory insurance against natural hazards.
“In the current macroeconomic situation, it would be inappropriate to burden the owners of residential buildings with even more costs,” Buschmann told the Handelsblatt. These would also be passed on to the tenants.
Instead, the FDP politician advocates educational campaigns that raise awareness that the state no longer compensates for unlimited damage in the event of a disaster. “The informed residential building owner can then decide for himself whether and how he bears the risk of damage to his own building,” said the minister. Preventive structural measures, your own financial provision or taking out natural hazard insurance could be ways here.
Buschmann explained that the federal states could take action themselves: “Should the federal states want compulsory insurance and think it is right, it would be legally possible for them to introduce it.”
Half of households do not have appropriate insurance
The trigger for the debate was the 2021 flood disaster, in which more than 180 people died in North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland-Palatinate as well as in parts of Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg and Saxony. Billions in damage were caused to houses, but also to roads and bridges.
So far, only about half of all residential property owners have natural hazard insurance. In the event of damage, the other households face a financial loss.
Because of Buschmann’s rejection, Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) was unable to come up with a concrete legislative proposal on compulsory insurance at the prime ministers’ conference.
In view of extreme weather events, the federal states are pushing for such a safeguard. The Prime Ministers of Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia, Stephan Weil (SPD) and Hendrik Wüst (CDU) made this clear on Thursday in Berlin.
That does not work like this. Winfried Kretschmann (Greens), Prime Minister of Baden-Württemberg
Wüst criticized the fact that Buschmann had “rejected” the chancellor and thus “triggered astonishment”. The states have now asked the federal government once again to examine the issue. It will then be discussed again at the beginning of 2023.
Weil said: “We believe that compulsory insurance is correct.” Not only the flood disaster in the Ahr Valley, but also experiences in many years before, in all parts of Germany, had shown that it could affect anyone.
“It can’t be right that we keep trying to put together huge special pots from public budgets,” explained Weil. “If everyone is there, the burden for each individual will be correspondingly low.”
Even before the MPK, Wüst had accused the federal government of inaction: “The states agreed that we want compulsory insurance. We are still in agreement.” Six months ago, it was agreed “with the chancellor, with the federal government” that a draft would be drawn up. “Unfortunately, he’s still not there today,” criticized Wüst.
Baden-Württemberg’s Prime Minister Winfried Kretschmann (Greens) told the Tagesspiegel that only a “report with more questions than answers” was presented at the MPK: “It doesn’t work that way.”
Insurers warn against compulsory insurance
The insurers, on the other hand, warned on Thursday of a strict legal regulation. “A singular compulsory insurance does not solve the problem, on the contrary, it does not prevent a single loss,” said the general manager of the German Insurance Association (GDV), Jörg Asmussen.
GDV called for the heads of government of the federal states to better focus their deliberations on prevention and adaptation to the consequences of climate change. This is the “linchpin” so that damage caused by natural disasters and thus insurance premiums do not get out of hand financially.
The insurance industry advocates automatically converting all building insurance policies that have already been taken out to elementary protection as of a key date, provided customers do not object. A legal basis would also have to be created for this. New contracts therefore include protection against elemental damage for buildings anyway.
According to the insurance industry, “binding protective measures” would also have to be taken into account. These include insurers building bans in endangered areas, an obligation to use flood-resistant building materials, a climate risk assessment for building permits and a natural hazard ID card that shows the susceptibility of buildings to damage.
NRW Minister of Justice Benjamin Limbach (Greens) explained that the introduction of mandatory insurance for residential buildings against natural hazards “at least not from the outset” would conflict with far-reaching constitutional concerns.
At federal level, a goal-oriented discussion on compulsory insurance should therefore take place with the federal states. Limbach told the Handelsblatt: “The justice ministers of the federal states then expect a concrete regulatory proposal from the federal government.”
More: The federal government wants to present a crisis prevention strategy – by mid-2023