{"id":100426,"date":"2026-07-27T10:11:11","date_gmt":"2026-07-27T08:11:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ru.law\/?p=100426"},"modified":"2026-07-27T10:11:12","modified_gmt":"2026-07-27T08:11:12","slug":"hausratversicherung-einbruch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ru.law\/en\/hausratversicherung-einbruch\/","title":{"rendered":"Home contents insurance after a burglary \u2013 underinsurance, burden of proof and vandalism"},"content":{"rendered":"

Why proof of the break-in, the list of stolen goods, and hidden clauses determine your compensation.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

After a burglary, does your home contents insurance reduce or deny coverage? Disputes almost always arise over the same issues: proof of the burglary, the list of stolen items, underinsurance, limits on valuables, and allegations of gross negligence. Rogert & Ulbrich will review the denial and enforce your claims against the insurer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What home contents insurance covers after a burglary<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Home contents insurance covers movable items in the home if they are destroyed, damaged, or stolen due to an insured peril. After a burglary, three scenarios are particularly important: burglary itself, robbery, and vandalism committed by the perpetrator in connection with the break-in. Reimbursement is generally based on the replacement value, meaning the cost of equivalent new items.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So much for the theory. In practice, the insurer uses several points to reduce or completely deny compensation. The most important are proof of the burglary, the list of stolen items, underinsurance, the compensation limits for valuables, and the allegation of gross negligence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From his previous work on the insurance side, lawyer Dario Kovac is familiar with these review criteria. Those who know them can effectively counter a reduction in benefits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is your insurance company reducing or denying your claim after a burglary? Don't accept their explanation without question, because a Insurer's refusal to pay benefits<\/a> is often vulnerable to attack.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Burden of proof: the external appearance of the burglary<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The most frequent point of contention is proving that a burglary actually occurred. You don't have to prove the break-in beyond a shadow of a doubt, but you do have to present the so-called outward signs of a burglary. According to case law, it is sufficient if you demonstrate facts that, based on common experience, suggest a burglary with a reasonable degree of probability, typically signs of forced entry and the absence of stolen items.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you can provide this proof, the ball is in the insurer's court. They can only refuse payment if they, in turn, can prove a significant probability that the burglary was staged. Mere suspicion or the lack of clear evidence is not sufficient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That's why the evidence at the crime scene is so important. Broken windows, pry marks on doors, or damaged locks are the core of your evidence. If they are hastily removed, proving your case becomes unnecessarily difficult.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Does the insurer deny the burglary or allege it was staged? Secure all evidence and have the case reviewed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The list of stolen items and the report to the police<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

After a burglary, you have several obligations. Two are particularly important: You must report the burglary to the police immediately and submit a list of the missing items, the so-called stolen goods list, to your insurer and the police. This list also serves as an aid in the investigation and therefore must not be submitted too late.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Insurers often exploit errors in these obligations. A late, incomplete, or subsequently supplemented list of stolen goods is considered a breach of duty. However, whether this actually results in a reduction of benefits is a matter of... Contract interpretation and breaches of duty<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The consequences are governed by Section 28 of the German Insurance Contract Act (VVG). The insurer is only completely exempt from liability in cases of intentional negligence. In cases of gross negligence, the insurer may only reduce the benefit in proportion to the degree of fault; in cases of simple negligence, the insurer remains fully liable. Furthermore, the negligence must have been the cause of the damage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is the insurer citing a faulty list of stolen goods? A complete denial of benefits is often inadmissible in such cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Underinsurance and the valuables clause<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Two further clauses determine the amount of compensation and are often underestimated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n