A meteorite and the hut burning down and the man are large burns. Does insurance descend?... Talk in Germany

I hear that there was a witnessing testimony of a fire of having witnessed the light that burns brightly that draws the arc in the sky at that time, too. The local police spokesman : as a story of the observation point. ｢At that time, the splinter might have rushed into the atmosphere because there was a meteoroid near the earth. It burns out by the process of rushing into the atmosphere or it resolves, and it doesn't reach the ground usually. However, there is a possibility of the exception this time. ｣It makes it.

To tell the truth, frequently the meteorite has fallen more or less, they fall to the house etc. in the probability theory, and it cannot be said to the ground that the possibility of causing the accident like this time is 0. Then, if a fire breaks out because of the fall of the meteorite, is insurance applied?

The application of insurance to a time when ..large scale.. prior can be assumed final event seems to be as difficult as the movie 'Deep impact' and 'Armageddon'. When it is small-scale and ,so to speak, the one as the natural disaster (natural damage) like this time is sudden, it seems to apply. However, it .."The meteorite falls and suffer".. doesn't assume it to begin with in present insurance. It makes amends to a fire that occurs due to the earthquake for "The building only receives damage more than partial destruction" basically only for the fire insurance (It is necessary to enter the earth quake insurance additionally to prepare enough in a fire due to the earthquake, too).

The mark like "Natural disaster caused by a fire, lightning, the wind, the leopard, and Yukiwazawai" is done or the judgment will change into the item of insurance in which it joins for it makes amends whether it depends on the mark "(I hasten to inform you) natural disaster depending on Yukiwazawai etc.". The insurance company answers in case of the former, "It is not possible to make amends because the meteorite is off the subject" and the rebuttal is difficult. It is possible ..".. to refute it , saying that 'Etc. It is included in'" because the meteorite is an impossible natural disaster prior to assume in case of the latter.