After a traffic accident, those who caused an accident must generally reimburse the entire workshop bill – even if the bill may be excessive. The BGH ruled that.
After a traffic accident, the injured party can take their damaged car to the workshop for repairs and demand reimbursement of the costs from the person who caused the accident or their insurance company. The highest German civil court has now made it clear in a total of five decisions that this also applies if the bill may be excessive.
Cause of accident wears that “Workshop risk”
According to the current legal situation, the person who caused the accident bears the so-called “workshop risk” after a traffic accident. In concrete terms, this means: The injured party can demand reimbursement of the entire workshop bill even if the workshop worked improperly or uneconomically and the repair therefore became too expensive. This applies at least if the injured party was unable to recognize this.
The background is that the injured party usually lacks the necessary specialist knowledge to be able to assess the damage to their own car and the costs incurred. In return, the person who caused the accident or their insurance company can contact the workshop and recover any costs that may have been overpaid.
Payment also for repairs not carried out
The BGH has now made it clear that these principles also apply if individual repair steps may not have been carried out even though they are on the invoice. In the underlying case, according to the invoice, transport costs had been incurred for painting work. And this despite the workshop having its own paint shop. The insurance company therefore refused to reimburse the injured party for these costs.
But according to the BGH, she has to do this. “In this respect, the repair of the damage takes place in a foreign sphere of influence that cannot be controlled by the injured party,” said the presiding judge of the VI. Civil Senate, Stephan Seiters, in the verdict.
Those who are injured are not allowed to enrich themselves
However, these principles should not lead to the injured party becoming enriched after a traffic accident at the expense of the person who caused the accident or their insurance company. Therefore, if he has not yet paid the invoice, he can only demand payment directly to the workshop and not to himself.
This is intended to prevent the following scenario: If the insurance company first pays the full invoice amount – including the excessive costs – to the injured party, the injured party could pay the invoice to the workshop – and then get the inflated part of the invoice back from the workshop. Then not only would his repair costs be paid, but he would also have received additional money from the person who caused the accident. However, according to the Karlsruhe judges, this violates the prohibition on enrichment.
The ruling has these consequences for practice
After traffic accidents, disputes about excessive repair costs often arise between the motor vehicle liability insurance company and the injured party. With the current rulings, the BGH is strengthening the rights of those injured.
However, the court also made it clear that the above principles only apply to repair costs that are actually attributable to the accident. Injured parties may not take advantage of the repair to have repair work carried out that is unrelated to the accident.
AZ: VI ZR 38/22, VI ZR 239/22, VI ZR 253/22, VI ZR 266/22 and VI ZR 51/23
Klaus Hempel, SWR, tagesschau, January 16, 2024 4:59 p.m