ᐅ House Uninhabitable Due to Neighbor's Fire – Who Is Responsible for the Costs?

Good evening.
Not our house, but my brother’s. Last night, there was a fire in the neighboring house to my brother’s. The fire department woke them up during the night, and they had to leave the house wearing only their nightwear, with two small children. Thankfully, there were no cases of smoke inhalation or other physical injuries. My brother told me that when they left, the house was already completely filled with smoke, and the smoke had penetrated through all the cracks in the walls and floors (an at least 350-year-old historic building).

First of all, big thanks to the Heidelberg fire department… if they had arrived just a few minutes later, it would have been really bad, as these houses don’t have a second escape route.

Today, they were allowed to briefly enter the house with accompaniment to retrieve essential items. The strong smell of smoke inside was immediately noticeable, and worse yet, small soot streaks were visible in many cracks and gaps in the walls and floors. In other words, the smoke really penetrated every corner. We’re not just talking about wiping down surfaces with a damp cloth and being done. Rather, this will likely require renovations lasting several weeks, possibly including replacing floors, and then probably several months in total. If historic preservation authorities get involved, it could take even longer.

Now the question is, which insurance covers what and to what extent? This seems to be much less clearly regulated than with traffic accidents, and my initial online research shows very different information. Are there fixed rules? Or does it really depend on whether the tenant in the neighboring house even has personal liability insurance?

Best regards,
Andreas

In my opinion, the matter is quite clear. The fire insurance for the house that burned down will cover the damage. At least, that is how insurance policies have worked in my experience. It has nothing to do with liability insurance.

It depends. A friend didn’t receive anything because the fire was caused by a toddler four floors above (who had twisted something on the stove). However, it was only minor damage. Apartment in a house
not a listed building
no water damage
only smoke and dust in every crack

haydee schrieb:

Depends.

Depends on the situation.

Fire in the house means fire insurance. However, the insurer might seek reimbursement from the customer. It depends on the circumstances. There are various legal rulings on this.

At that time, it was rejected because a toddler was the cause. Duty of supervision was not breached.

This may have changed as it was 20 years ago. Someone must have successfully challenged the rejection, including through legal action.

I find the question interesting and the issue unclear, so I am curious about the resolution.
It would be new to me if the fire insurance also covered damage to neighboring buildings.
Liability insurance probably does not cover fire damage to neighboring buildings either, unless there was a breach of duty.
If the brother has buildings insurance, it will likely cover the damage. They might try to recover the money afterwards.
If the brother does not have buildings insurance, it could become expensive.