German Insurers' Natural Hazard Losses Reach Only €950 Million in the First Half of 2026, but the GDV Calls It 'Simply Luck'

Germany's insurers paid out less for natural hazards in the first half of 2026 than their own long-term averages would suggest, and the industry's trade body is warning that this should not be mistaken for good news about the climate. The German Insurance Association, known as the GDV, reported in early September that insured losses from natural hazards in the first six months of the year were about €950 million. The figures were reported by the German trade outlets cash-online.de on September 1 and autohaus.de a few days later, and this article summarises them for English-speaking readers. All amounts are insured losses, meaning the claims that insurers expect to pay, and not the total economic damage.

The breakdown shows where the money went. Storm and hail damage to property accounted for about €400 million. Other natural hazards, such as heavy rain and flooding, were about €200 million, which is roughly double the same period in 2025. Motor insurance natural hazard claims were about €350 million. The total of about €950 million is very close to the first half of 2025, but the mix was different, because in that year storm and hail cost about €500 million and other natural hazards about €100 million, with motor also at €350 million. The GDV describes the half-year as below the long-term average, mainly because there were no major winter storms.

The more notable part is how the association interpreted the result. GDV chief executive Jörg Asmussen said the low losses in the first half were simply luck. The coverage links the comment to climate change and a record-heat summer in 2026, and Asmussen stressed that individual severe weather events can cause high damage at any time. In other words, the figure describes what happened in a particular half-year and not how risky the weather has become.

The GDV also gave a forecast for the full year. For storm and hail, including agricultural crop insurance, it expects about €2 billion in 2026 if the second half is average. A statistically average year, at today's portfolio and price levels, would produce about €3.1 billion. For other natural hazards, such as flooding and heavy rain, it expects about €1 billion for the year, compared with a long-term average of about €1.8 billion. In motor insurance, it expects about 300,000 natural hazard claims and claims spending of €1.2 billion to €1.3 billion, and said the second-half outlook is slightly above average because July brought more damage than usual.

The long-term trend is the central point. According to the GDV figures, the ten-year average of natural hazard losses in property insurance has risen from about €1.4 billion in 2000 to 2009 to about €2.4 billion in 2016 to 2025. That is an increase of roughly 70%, though the reports reviewed do not say whether the figures are adjusted for inflation, rising property values or changes in how many people hold cover, all of which affect claims. The GDV attributes the rise to climate change. Readers should treat the cause as the association's view while recognising that insurers' loss data are one of the main sources used by researchers to track changes in weather damage.

A separate market report published on September 1 by the German financial site Der Aktionär noted that Munich Re shares were the top performer in the DAX that day, up 1.1%, and linked the move to the GDV figures. The author argued that a low loss year can support reinsurers' short-term earnings, while the rising long-term losses underline the importance of adequate premiums. The site disclosed that its publisher holds positions in Munich Re. This is commentary, not a finding, and it is not a recommendation to buy or sell any security.

What is the GDV asking for? According to the reports, the association backs a three-part concept for natural hazard protection. The first is broad but voluntary coverage with an opt-out model, which means that natural hazard cover would be included in building insurance unless the customer chooses to decline it. The second is binding prevention and climate adaptation, including risk-aware planning and building, a construction stop in flood zones, a nationwide natural hazard certificate for buildings, targeted unsealing of land, and a climate risk assessment as part of building permits. The third is a public-private partnership for extreme risks, so that the most severe events are shared with the state. These are the GDV's proposals and not law. Germany has debated compulsory natural hazard insurance for years, and the association's preference for an opt-out model sits between the current voluntary system and a mandate.

What does it mean for homeowners and tenants? Nothing changes in law today. But the debate affects premiums and availability, and there are practical steps. Check whether your building insurance includes cover for natural hazards such as flooding and heavy rain, since standard policies may cover storm and hail but not every kind of water damage. Tenants should check their contents policy. Ask your insurer about measures that can reduce risk, such as backflow protection or flood barriers. If you are buying property, look at official hazard maps.

For readers outside Germany the lesson is general. A single good or bad half-year is a poor guide, and long-term averages and trends matter more. The GDV's own numbers show both a quiet year and a rising baseline at the same time. The second half of 2026 will show whether the association's forecast of about €2 billion for storm and hail holds, and its figures for the full year will be published after the year ends.