{"id":102818,"date":"2026-10-17T15:15:53","date_gmt":"2026-10-17T13:15:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ru.law\/?p=102818"},"modified":"2026-10-12T15:23:52","modified_gmt":"2026-10-12T13:23:52","slug":"wasserschaden-schwamm-gebaeudeversicherung","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ru.law\/en\/wasserschaden-schwamm-gebaeudeversicherung\/","title":{"rendered":"Water damage with mold infestation \u2013 what the building insurance must pay for"},"content":{"rendered":"

What the Higher Regional Court of Cologne decided regarding the sponge exclusion clause in residential building insurance<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

After a burst pipe, building insurance does not automatically cover damage caused by dry rot. The Higher Regional Court of Cologne (OLG K\u00f6ln) confirmed the validity of the dry rot exclusion clause in its ruling of February 10, 2026 (Case No. 9 U 19\/23). However, damage caused solely by water without a proven connection to dry rot remains covered. Rogert & Ulbrich will review your claim to determine which damages your insurer is obligated to cover.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case: Tap water from the shower and a white pore sponge<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A homeowner had a bathroom with a shower installed on the upper floor of her timber-framed house. During subsequent repairs, water damage was discovered in the shower area. The floor structure was heavily infested with white pore dry rot, a wood-destroying fungus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The homeowner demanded approximately \u20ac66,000 from her building insurer. The insurer cited the exclusion clause in the policy for damage caused by dry rot. Only just under \u20ac5,000 was reimbursed for pure water damage not attributable to dry rot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The legal dispute went all the way to the Federal Court of Justice. By decision of November 13, 2024 (Case No. IV ZR 212\/23), the Federal Court of Justice referred the case back to the Higher Regional Court of Cologne. The Higher Regional Court was to clarify whether dry rot is such a typical consequence of water damage that the exclusion jeopardizes the purpose of the insurance policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is your building insurance company refusing payment due to dry rot? Have the reasoning reviewed in detail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision: Sponge exclusion is effective<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Higher Regional Court of Cologne, after obtaining an expert opinion, declared the sponge exclusion clause valid. As a clause restricting performance, it is subject to review under the rules governing standard business terms and conditions. It would only be invalid under Section 307 Paragraph 2 No. 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) if it so severely restricted essential rights that the purpose of the contract was jeopardized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the court, this would only be the case if mold damage were a regular, or at least very frequent, inevitable, and characteristic consequence of water leakage, affecting virtually the entire building. The owner failed to provide this proof. The expert concluded that mold rarely forms as a result of water damage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court also clarified that the term "fungus" in the policy terms is to be interpreted broadly and encompasses all wood-destroying fungi, including the white pore fungus. The court rejected claims based on good faith and a breach of the insurer's duty to advise. Since the contract had been brokered through an insurance agent, the insurer had no duty to advise under Section 6 Paragraph 5 of the German Insurance Contract Act (VVG) (Section 6 Paragraph 6 VVG).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The exclusion for mold damage in your building insurance policy is likely to be valid. Therefore, it is all the more important to clearly assign each individual damage claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What remains insured despite the exclusion of sponges<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The exclusion does not automatically cover all consequences of water damage. Damage caused by moisture remains reimbursable, provided a causal link to the sponge cannot be proven. In the case at hand, this amounted to just under \u20ac5,000 for pure moisture damage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyone invoking an exclusion of coverage must generally prove that its conditions are met. This burden usually rests with the insurer. They must therefore demonstrate which damages were actually caused by dry rot. A general reference to existing dry rot infestation is insufficient to reject all claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Typically, the following damages can also be covered by insurance in the case of fungal infestation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n