Bad Kissingen Local Court orders the other party involved in the accident to pay almost 4,000 euros in rental car costs

In a recent judgment dated December 2, 2025 (case no. 72 C 170/25), the Bad Kissingen Local Court ruled in favor of our clients in a traffic accident case. The defendants were ordered to pay a total of EUR 3,896.10 plus interest as joint and several debtors.

The case

Our client was involved in a traffic accident on 13.05.2025 in which his BMW X3 was significantly damaged. During the 37-day repair period, he rented a replacement vehicle at a cost of 3,885.21 euros. The opposing insurance company only paid 150 euros and refused to cover any further costs, citing various objections.

Our successful argumentation

We were able to convince the court on all key points:

1. appropriateness of the rental period (37 days)

The defendant argued that only 5 days had been necessary. By questioning the repair shop’s witness, we were able to prove that the repair was delayed due to delivery problems with a bi-xenon headlight (optional equipment). The court found that our client had made every effort to have the repair carried out quickly and was not responsible for the delay.

2. amount of the rental car costs

The opposing party wanted to apply the Fraunhofer rental price index instead of the Schwacke list and enforce a deduction of 10% for personal savings. However, the court followed the case law of the Regional Court of Schweinfurt and applied the Schwacke list with only 3% personal savings.

3. workshop replacement vehicle vs. self-drive rental vehicle

The defendant tried to reduce the costs with the argument that it was not a self-drive rental vehicle. The court clarified that this is irrelevant for the injured party, as:

• it is not recognizable to the injured party how a vehicle is registered
• there is no obligation to make inquiries in this regard
• workshop replacement vehicles are only available to workshop customers and a price comparison is not possible

4. pre-trial legal fees

The other pre-trial legal fees were also awarded as necessary legal costs.

Special features of the judgment

The court expressly emphasized:

• The Schwacke list is generally suitable as a basis for estimation
• The injured party does not have to look for cheaper replacement car rates, as these are not available
• A duty to mitigate damages was not breached
• The repair time was reasonable, as the injured party is not responsible for delivery difficulties

Conclusion

This judgment shows once again how important competent legal representation is when enforcing accident compensation claims. Insurance companies regularly try to reduce payments with various arguments. We were able to achieve the best possible result for our client through well-founded legal argumentation and targeted presentation of evidence.

The defendants must now bear not only the principal claim, but also all legal costs.

---

Full text

Bad Kissingen Local Court

Ref. 72 C 170/25

ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE

In the legal dispute

[…], […], […], […]

• Plaintiff –

Attorneys of record: Rechtsanwälte Grüne & Partner Rechtsanwälte mbB, Mainberger Straße 36, 97422 Schweinfurt, Gz. 313/25 GG

vs.

1. […], […], […], […]

• Defendant –

2. […] AG, represented by the Management Board, […], […], […], Ref. Claim number: […]

• Defendant –

Counsel for 1 and 2: […], Ref. […]

for damages

the Local Court Bad Kissingen by the […] on 02.12.2025 on the basis of the oral hearing of 11.11.2025 issues the following

Final judgment

1. The defendants are ordered as joint and several debtors to pay the plaintiff € 3,735.21 plus interest thereon at a rate of 5 percentage points above the prime rate since July 12, 2025 and a further € 160.89 plus interest thereon at a rate of 5 percentage points above the prime rate since August 21, 2025.

Certified copy

The remainder of the action is dismissed.

2. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the costs of the proceedings.
3. The judgment is provisionally enforceable against security amounting to 110% of the amount to be enforced in each case.

Resolution

The amount in dispute is set at € 3,929.06.

Facts of the case

The parties are in dispute about remaining damages from a traffic accident on 13.05.2025 in […].

The plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged in need of repair in a traffic accident.

During the repair of his vehicle, make BMW, model X3, in the period from 13.05.2025 to 18.06.2025, the plaintiff rented a replacement vehicle from the company […] GmbH at a price of € 3,885.21 (Annex K1). The plaintiff invoices a rental car of class 8 for 37 days, whereby the plaintiff’s vehicle also belongs to this rental car class.

The defendant then paid € 150.00 on 11.07.2025 and also settled the remainder of the vehicle damage on the assumption that the defendant was fully liable. No further payment was made for the rental car costs.

In a letter dated 01.07.2025, the plaintiff asserted his claim against the defendant, setting a deadline of 08.07.2025. A further demand for payment was made in a letter dated 15.07.2025 with a deadline of 22.07.2025.

The plaintiff claims that the repair of his vehicle was delayed, so that it took 37 days. On 10.07.2025, a statement of claim was issued to the plaintiff’s representative.

The plaintiff believes that the defendant is obliged to reimburse the car rental costs and that the costs are not excessive. The plaintiff was not responsible for the duration of the repair. The rental car costs were necessary and reasonable. The defendant has been in default since 09.07.2025. The pre-trial legal costs have not yet been fully compensated; due to the various legal action orders, procedural fees are owed on a pro rata basis.

The plaintiff requests that the court rule as follows:

1. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff € 3,735.21 plus interest thereon at a rate of 5 percentage points above the respective base interest rate since July 9, 2025.
2. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff further pre-trial legal fees in the amount of € 354.74 plus interest of 5 percentage points above the prime rate since the pendency of the action.

The defendant claims that the Court should

Dismissal of the action.

The defendant argues that the rental vehicle is not a self-drive rental vehicle, but a workshop vehicle.

The rental car costs were excessive. Only a duration of 5 days was required. Furthermore, the car rental costs should not be determined according to the so-called Schwackel list. This list was unsuitable, the Fraunhofer rental price index was preferable. In addition, a deduction for personal savings of 10 % should be made.

The ancillary claims were not owed.

The court took evidence at the oral hearing on 11.11.2025 by hearing the witness […] unsworn. With regard to the result of the taking of evidence, reference is made to the minutes of the oral hearing of 11.11.2025.

Reference is made to the transcript of the hearing on November 11, 2025, the pleadings submitted by the parties together with the annexes and the other parts of the file to supplement the facts of the case.

Reasons for the decision

The admissible action is largely well-founded.

I.

The action is admissible.

The Bad Kissingen Local Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1 ZPO in conjunction with Sections 23 no. 1 GVG. §§ 23 No. 1, 71 Para. 1 GVG and in accordance with §§ 20 StVG, 32 ZPO has local jurisdiction.

II.

The action is well-founded with regard to the rental car costs (claim no. 1). With regard to the interest claimed on the principal claim and the legal fees, the action is only partially justified.

The plaintiff is entitled to payment of damages due to the accident in the form of further rental car costs from the defendant under §§ 7 Para. 1, 17 StVG, §§ 823 Para. 1, 249 ff. BGB, § 115 VVG, §§ 1, 3 PflVG in the amount of a further € 3,735.21. However, interest was only payable on the claim from 12.07.2025. With regard to the pre-trial legal costs, there is only a claim in the amount of € 160.89 plus interest.

1.

The defendant’s liability for the damage to the plaintiff’s vehicle is undisputed. Since the plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged and in need of repair, he is to be placed in the position he would have been in had the damage not occurred. This includes the availability of a roadworthy car regardless of the question of the actual necessity of a rental car. This also applies for the duration of the repair and the rental period of 37 days.

According to §§ 7, 17 StVG, §§ 823 Para. 1, 249 BGB, § 1 PflVG and § 115 VVG, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the rental car costs.

a)

According to Section 249 BGB, the actual expenses that a reasonable, economically minded person in the position of the injured party could consider appropriate and necessary are eligible for compensation (Grüneberg / Grüneberg, 84th edition 2025, Section 249 BGB, para. 12). In the case of rental car costs, the injured party can demand compensation for the amount that was objectively necessary (Grüneberg- Grüneberg, 84th edition 2025, Section 249 BGB, para. 30).

b)

The amount of the reimbursable standard rate as the necessary restoration costs can be estimated in accordance with Section 287 ZPO. In this respect, the court decides by way of free evidence and within the scope of dutiful discretion in accordance with Section 287 (1) ZPO which bases this estimate is to be based on and whether and what evidence is to be taken. According to the case law of the Federal Court of Justice, it is generally permissible to use both the Schwacke list and the Fraunhofer rental price index to estimate the standard rate in the context of a damage estimate in accordance with Section 287 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in which the trial judge has special discretion. According to supreme court case law, both market surveys are in principle equally suitable for estimating the necessary car rental costs (BGH, judgment of 22.02.2011, VI ZR 353/09). As the lists serve as a basis for estimation, it is also possible to deviate from the rate resulting from the respective list within the scope of the court’s discretion, for example by applying discounts or surcharges (BGH, judgment of 12.04.2011, VI ZR 300/09).

On the question of which basis for estimation is to be used, the competent court of appeal of the Regional Court of Schweinfurt is of the opinion that the standard rate can be estimated using the Schwacke rental price index at the place of rental and takeover (see LG Schweinfurt, judgment of 11.04.2014, BeckRS 2014, 128887; LG Schweinfurt judgment of 15.07.2024, BeckRS 2024, 18007 – cited from beck-online).

As already explained, the so-called Schwacke list is a standard for estimating damages within the meaning of Section 287 ZPO, against whose suitability – in particular with regard to the method used to obtain the necessary data – there are no general reservations (BGH, judgment of 22.2.2011 – VI ZR 353/09, para. 7, 8). There is no need to use the Fraunhofer rent index instead of the so-called Schwacke list. The latter table is also by no means uncontested in its survey methodology. From a general point of view, there are no compelling reasons to give preference to the Fraunhofer Institute’s market survey. The fact that the Fraunhofer list, for example, sometimes produces significantly different results does not in itself cast doubt on the suitability of one list or the other.

There are no concrete doubts as to the suitability of the so-called Schwackel list as a basis for estimation in the present case.

For this to be the case, there would have to be concrete doubts as to whether the basis of the estimate realistically reflects the prices of the local market conditions, so that as a result other tables and lists better reflect the market conditions in the specific individual case. In such cases, the dubious and questionable set of tables is unsuitable as a basis for estimation. However, there are no such doubts about the concrete application of the so-called Schwackel list.

c)

The plaintiff was allowed to hire a rental car for the entire duration of the repair, i.e. for 37 days.

Based on the evidence taken, it is clear that the repair of the plaintiff’s vehicle took considerably longer than estimated in the expert report due to a delivery problem with the headlights.

The witness […] stated in his unsworn testimony that the headlight was initially considered available and had been ordered. The chronological sequence was described by the witness in a comprehensible and conclusive manner. There is also no reason to disbelieve the witness’s statements. The witness went on to explain that the bi-xenon headlights are an optional extra that is generally not so common on the market. It was therefore difficult to obtain one on the second-hand market. However, this was necessary because the headlamp was not available as an original part. According to the witness, the supply problem only arose after the parts had been ordered.

The injuring party is liable for the rental car costs for the period objectively required for the repair or until a replacement vehicle is purchased. The indemnifiable period also includes the time required to obtain an expert opinion and a reasonable period of reflection to decide whether to carry out the repair or purchase a new vehicle. The injured party must ensure that repairs are carried out or a new vehicle purchased as quickly as possible, but is generally not obliged to choose the option that can be realized more quickly in the specific case (Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, 9th edition 2022, § 249, marginal no. 443 – cited from beck-online).

Based on the statements of the witness […], it is clear that the plaintiff endeavored to have the repair carried out quickly within the scope of his possibilities. The plaintiff also agreed to a used headlight being installed in his vehicle in order to expedite the repair.

With regard to the rest of the repair process, it is not apparent that there were any delays, especially not delays for which the plaintiff is responsible.

The rental period of 37 days is not objectionable.

d)

The so-called Schwackel list for the year 2024 is to be used as the basis for the estimate. The plaintiff invoices a vehicle in rental car class 8.

The values of the so-called Schwackel list for vehicle class 8 are therefore relevant when determining the basis for the estimate.

The Schwackel list does not use the arithmetic mean, but the weighted mean “mode” or, in the absence of such, the value “near mean”, as these values are based on the accessibility of the corresponding offer. A better basis for estimation is the mode value, which denotes the price offered by most of the car rental companies surveyed in the market survey.

The zip code area 977 or 97 is to be assumed. The tariff is to be determined in the zip code area of the injured party (BGH NJW 2007, 3782). This means at the place of residence of the injured party or at the place where the vehicle was rented.

According to the case law of the Regional Court of Schweinfurt, a deduction of 3% is also to be made for personal expenses saved (Regional Court of Schweinfurt loc. cit.). There are no indications that a deduction of 10 % would be justified. Moreover, even with a deduction of 10 %, the claimed rental car price would be below the basis for estimation, so that this is not relevant.

If the rental car costs are calculated in accordance with the case law of the Regional Court of Schweinfurt, the following results:

Schwackel list 2024, rental car class 8, zip code area 977 for 37 days:

Weekly flat rate 983.00 € / 7 = 140.43 x 37 days = 5,195.91 €

Less 3 % personal savings = € 5,040.30

The plaintiff is claiming an amount of € 3,885.21, which is below the basis of the estimate. Even assuming a personal saving of 10 %, this would result in an amount of € 4,676.32.

After the defendant made a payment of € 150.00 on this amount, the claim expired in this amount, § 362 BGB.

The plaintiff therefore still has a residual claim in the amount of € 3,735.21.

e)

The fact that the replacement vehicle was possibly not a so-called self-drive rental vehicle, or that it was not insured as such, does not change the assessment of the recoverability of the rental car costs.

The invoiced costs prove to be “necessary” within the meaning of Section 249 (2) sentence 1 BGB. For the injured party, it is irrelevant whether the repair company operates the vehicle as a self-drive rental vehicle, as a workshop replacement vehicle or as a demonstration vehicle with corresponding insurance. It is also usually not apparent to the injured party how such a vehicle is registered, that there is any difference at all in the registration and that different tariffs may result. However, the injured party is also not obliged to investigate this. It is true that an injured party may in principle be obliged to inquire about more favorable offers within the scope of the obligation to mitigate damages pursuant to Section 254 (2) BGB. However, this obligation can only be limited to the prices at which other car rental companies offer their vehicles as part of a “normal rate”. It is not possible for an injured party to inquire about the prices of workshop replacement vehicles or demonstration vehicles from other companies. These vehicles are regularly only made available to workshop customers. It is not possible for an injured party to compare such prices.

Another vehicle can therefore only be rented on the basis of the standard rate for rental vehicles because the injured party cannot reasonably be offered a more favorable rate. The question of whether the vehicle offered by the workshop is a self-drive rental vehicle or a workshop replacement vehicle is therefore irrelevant in relation to the claimant (see also Saarbrücken Higher Regional Court, BeckRS 2023, 14541 cited by beck-online; Schweinfurt Regional Court judgment of 21.01.2022, Ref. 3 S 41/21 n.v.).

f)

The question of whether it was necessary for the plaintiff to rent a replacement vehicle at the so-called accident replacement rate is irrelevant.

g)

The plaintiff did not violate a duty to mitigate damages pursuant to § 254 para. 2 BGB by failing to call the defendant or other companies for an alternative offer for a rental car or to inquire about such an offer. There is no concrete submission by the defendant regarding a breach of such an obligation.

3.

The claim for interest follows from §§ 280, 286, 288 BGB, § 187 para. 1 BGB analogously.

The car rental costs were first claimed from the defendant in a letter dated 01.07.2025. In a letter dated July 11, 2025, the defendant settled the accident damage, acknowledging sole liability, and a payment of € 150.00 was made in respect of the rental car costs. However, the defendant refused to pay any other costs.

The deadline of 08.07.2025, set by the plaintiff in the letter dated 01.07.2025, was too short. Default occurred at the earliest with payment and, assuming a refusal to pay, otherwise on 12.07.2025.

The payment deadlines set by the plaintiff of only one week appear to be too short.

If the deadline is too short, a reasonable deadline is usually set in motion (BGH NJW 2016, 3654 – albeit for subsequent performance) (quoted from beck-online). In addition, the defendant would not be at fault within the meaning of Section 286 (4) BGB before the expiry of a sufficient inspection period, so that there would also be no default from this point of view.

The length of a payment or inspection period to be assessed generally depends on the circumstances of the individual case. Even in the settlement of traffic accidents, different courts set different time limits. In relatively simple cases, an inspection period of two to three weeks appears to be appropriate (e.g. also OLG Munich NJW-RR 2011, 386 cited from beck-online). However, no default can occur before the expiry of such a period.

However, since the defendant refused further payment of rental car costs in a letter dated July 11, 2025 (Section 286 (2) no. 3 BGB), the question of whether two or three weeks appears to be an appropriate period is irrelevant.

4.

The action is partially unfounded with regard to the asserted legal costs.

The pre-trial legal costs are recoverable as necessary legal costs in accordance with Section 249 BGB and are generally made up of a 1.3 business fee from a justified object value of € 13,180.87 (€ 933.40) plus a lump sum for expenses (€ 20.00) and VAT (€ 181.15).

The defendant has already made a payment of € 973.66 towards the amount of € 1,134.55. The claim has lapsed in this amount, Section 362 BGB.

There is still a claim for payment of € 160.89.

There is no further claim.

The plaintiff asserts an additional procedural fee (No. 3100 VV RVG) on the basis of the occurrence of default assumed by it as a claim for reimbursement under substantive law. In any case, it cannot be understood otherwise if the plaintiff refers to an action order dated 10.07.2025, which has been settled in the meantime.

Default had not even occurred at this point in time (see 3. above). Even if it is assumed that a reasonable payment period is two weeks, this period did not expire until 15.07.2025 in the case of a letter of demand dated 01.07.2025 (assuming receipt on the same day). Irrespective of the question of whether an order to bring an action was actually issued on 10.07.2025, there is no entitlement to the pro rata fee.

III.

The decision on costs is based on Section 92 (2) No. 1 ZPO.

Although the legal fees claimed (€ 193.85) increase the amount in dispute (€ 3,735.21 + € 193.85 = € 3,929.06), they are not an ancillary claim within the meaning of Section 4 ZPO. However, it is a minor additional claim, so that Section 92 (2) No. 1 ZPO applies.

The ruling on provisional enforceability is based on Section 709 ZPO.