Regional Court Schweinfurt on total loss: Residual value offer of the insurer is irrelevant if the vehicle continues to be used
Some legal issues appear to have been clearly clarified by case law.
However, this does not prevent individual liability insurers from wanting to “test” their limits here too.
In the present case, the opposing liability insurance company simply ignored such clear case law, including that of the Federal Court of Justice – so legal action had to be taken.
The local court upheld the claim in full – but even this did not lead to the insurer accepting it.
It was only after the appeal was lodged that the Schweinfurt Regional Court was finally able to provide clarification:
For example, the injured party who continues to use his accident-damaged vehicle in the event of a total loss – possibly after a (partial) repair – can have the residual value determined in an expert opinion for the regional market deducted when settling according to the fictitious replacement costs.
The expert commissioned by the injured party to estimate the damage for the purpose of settling the claim must, as a rule, determine three offers on the relevant regional market as a suitable basis for estimating the residual value and name these specifically in his expert opinion.
In the context of the fictitious settlement of damages, however, the injured party cannot be referred to a higher residual value offer that he cannot realize due to the actual continued use of the vehicle.
It is true that special circumstances may give the injured party cause to take advantage of more favorable liquidation opportunities that are readily available and to compensate for the damage he has suffered by liquidating his vehicle in the amount of the proceeds actually achieved (see BGH, NJW 2005, 357 = VersR 2005, 381).
However, such exceptions, the prerequisites for which are subject to the burden of proof of the injuring party, must be kept within narrow limits, because otherwise the compensation to which the injured party is entitled in accordance with § 249 Para.
2 sentence 1 BGB, according to which it is up to the injured party to decide what to do with the damaged vehicle.
In particular, the injured party may be forced to accept the recovery modalities requested by the insurance company when repairing the damage.
However, this would be the case if he had to take into account a residual value that can only be achieved on a residual value exchange within a short period of time.
To the full text of the decision: LG Schweinfurt, judgment of 04.04.2024, Ref. 33 S 48/23 e
Ihr Ansprechpartner
Günter Grüne
Rechtsanwalt | Partner
Fachanwalt für Verkehrsrecht
Mitglied der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Verkehrsrecht im DAV