The Insured Association is once again calling for a pool solution for elementary casualty insurance

The political dispute over compulsory natural hazards insurance is entering the next phase, although the federal justice minister Marco Buschman (FDP) recently rejected such a solution. The Federation of Policyholders (BdV) is now making itself heard and re-formulating its request for a pool solution.

“Taxpayers and policyholders have no sympathy for this bumbling. It is unacceptable to hastily react to recurring natural disasters with emergency aid packages worth billions instead of dealing with sound risk prevention. And it’s not sustainable if you have to use state funds to rebuild affected areas and you can’t use them for urgent prevention of structural risks,” the council spokesman criticized Stephen Rehmke.

Furthermore, Buschmann sided with the insurers with his refusal, the BdV continued. “Their influential lobby group GDV wants to rely on more information to achieve higher insurance density and is initially calling on the government for better preventive measures to keep damage costs low. With this educational strategy, the insurance rate has increased over the past twenty years – with the great floods of the summers of 2002, 2013 and 2021 – from about 20 to almost 50 percent,” consumer advocates complain.

So the BdV has this development with its own Proposal for swimming pool solution taken into consideration. In a collective bond system, the federal states would provide an insurance pool together with the insurance industry, which would be funded by a property tax surcharge. Building owners would then pay a higher property tax and receive basic protection in return. Anyone who can prove private natural hazards insurance should be exempt from this fee. “We believe this is a sustainable and viable solution and look forward to it being included in the discussion,” says Rehmke.

Federal Justice Minister Buschmann currently sees the individual federal states as obligated subjects: “If the federal states wanted compulsory insurance and thought it right, it would be legally possible for them to introduce it.” In turn, they sharply criticize the attitude of the FDP politician. Prime Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia Hendrik Wust (CDU) criticized according to the report that Buschmann had “rejected” the chancellor and thus “caused astonishment”.

On the other hand, Buschmann’s decision is likely to be approved by insurers, but they reject such mandatory insurance. “A single compulsory insurance does not solve the problem, indeed, it does not prevent a single accident”, the general manager of GDV recently underlined Jörg Asmussen in an opinion. Insurers therefore continue to support a general concept of prevention, adaptation to climate change and insurance.

Author: VW editorial team