Financial expert criticizes compulsory insurance against natural hazards: interference with fundamental rights and high administrative costs. Alternative suggestions needed.

Financial expert criticizes compulsory insurance against natural hazards: interference with fundamental rights and high administrative costs. Alternative suggestions needed.

According to a report from www.mdr.de, insurers in Saxony-Anhalt are against compulsory insurance against natural hazards. The President of the General Association of the German Insurance Industry (GDV), Norbert Rollinger, emphasizes that compulsory insurance is equivalent to a tax that would have to be borne by all citizens, homeowners and, indirectly, tenants. The Saxony-Anhalt Public Insurance Company (ÖSA) also expresses concerns about such compulsory insurance and proposes compulsory insurance instead.

According to Martin Ansorge, head of the property damage department at ÖSA, compulsory insurance against natural hazards would mean that citizens would be forced to insure their own property. In addition, the administrative effort associated with such compulsory insurance would be enormous. Instead, the insurance industry suggests that insurance companies automatically offer natural hazard insurance when a building is newly insured. However, the customer can still opt out, but in the event of damage, they would not receive any money from the government for their damaged home.

What does this mean for the market? By introducing compulsory insurance instead of compulsory insurance, insurers could gain new customers and thus expand their market presence. The protection for the customer would be improved, which could lead to higher customer satisfaction in the long term. The administrative burden of monitoring compulsory insurance would be lower compared to compulsory insurance, which would save the authorities time and money.

The introduction of compulsory insurance could have positive effects for consumers as they would receive improved insurance protection and lower deductibles. At the same time, control by insurance companies would be made easier, which would mean greater transparency and better advice for consumers.

In the industry, the introduction of compulsory insurance could lead to an increased focus on preventive measures, as insurers attach great importance to this. This could reduce the damage caused by natural disasters, which could lead to stable or even falling contribution rates for the insured in the long term.

Ultimately, however, it is important that politicians, in collaboration with insurers and other stakeholders, take preventative measures to minimize the impact of natural disasters. As www.mdr.de reports, Martin Ansorge from the ÖSA emphasizes that increased prevention through dike expansion, rain retention basins and unsealing of urban areas is necessary in order to cope with the increasing damage caused by climate change.