Regional Court of Schweinfurt, judgment of 27.10.2025, file number 21 O 754/24

In its judgment of 27.10.2025 (Ref. 21 O 754/24), the Regional Court of Schweinfurt confirmed that liability insurers may not arbitrarily reduce expert costs, but that the necessary expert costs must be estimated on the basis of the BVSK fee survey.

Many accident victims are familiar with the problem: after a traffic accident that was not their fault, they hire an independent motor vehicle expert to determine the amount of damage. However, when it comes to settling the claim, the other party’s insurance company collapses the expert’s invoice. Flat-rate claims are often made that the fee is excessive, or additional costs such as photography and writing costs are not recognized.

In the judgment we obtained, the Regional Court of Schweinfurt has now set clear limits to this practice.

The case

Our client was involved in a traffic accident through no fault of his own. The liability of the other party was undisputed. Nevertheless, the opposing insurance company refused to pay the full costs of the expert report, among other things. It reduced both the basic fee and the additional costs for photos and writing expenses.

The court’s decision

The Regional Court of Schweinfurt followed our arguments in full and ordered the defendants to pay the outstanding balance.

The main points of the decision:

• BVSK fee survey as a basis for estimation: The court confirmed that the BVSK fee survey 2024 is a suitable basis for estimation in accordance with Section 287 ZPO to determine the necessity of the expert costs.
• HB-V corridor: A basic fee that is within fee corridor V (HB V) of the BVSK table is customary and appropriate. In the present case, the fee was even below this corridor and was therefore in no way objectionable.
• Ancillary costs are reimbursable: The court clarified that photo and writing costs are not covered by the basic fee.
• Photo costs: € 2.00 per photo were recognized as reasonable.
• Writing costs: €1.80 per page were also confirmed.
• No obligation to conduct market research: The injured party is not obliged to conduct market research in order to find the most favorable expert. In principle, he may commission a qualified expert of his choice.

Full text (excerpts)

ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE

In the legal dispute

[…]

Attorneys at law:Rechtsanwälte Grüne & Partner Rechtsanwälte mbB, Mainberger Straße 36, 97422 Schweinfurt, Gz: 597/24 GG

vs.

[…]

for damages

the Regional Court of Schweinfurt – 2nd Civil Chamber – by the presiding judge at the Regional Court […] as a single judge on October 27, 2025, based on the facts of October 13, 2025 without an oral hearing with the consent of the parties pursuant to Section 128 (2) ZPO, issues the following order

Final judgment

1. The defendants are ordered as joint and several debtors to pay the plaintiff € 2,959.49 plus interest thereon at a rate of 5 percentage points above the prime rate since September 27, 2024 as well as interest from € 2,430.05 at a rate of 5 percentage points above the prime rate for the period from September 27, 2024 to January 22, 2025.
2. The defendants are ordered as joint and several debtors to pay the plaintiff pre-trial legal fees in the amount of € 259.90 plus interest thereon at a rate of 5 percentage points above the prime rate, the defendant 1) from November 3, 2024, the defendant 2) from November 5, 2024.
3. The remainder of the action is dismissed.
4. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the costs of the proceedings.
5. 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 € 5,827.44.

Facts of the case

The plaintiff is claiming damages following a traffic accident.

[…]

Reasons for the decision

The action is admissible and, to the extent that it is still to be decided following the concordant declaration of partial settlement, is largely successful.

A.The action is admissible; in particular, the court seised has jurisdiction over the subject matter (Sections 23 No. 1, 71 (1) GVG) and the place of jurisdiction (Section 20 StVG).

B.The action is largely well-founded.

The plaintiff has a claim against the defendants for reimbursement of the damages he incurred from the traffic accident in accordance with §§ 7 Para. 1 StVG, 115 Para. 1 No. 1 VVG in the amount of a further € 2,959.49 in the main action as well as further legal fees in the amount of € 259.90 plus interest in each case.

I.The court is convinced that only contributions to causation by the car insured with the defendant are to be taken into account, behind which the simple operating risk of the plaintiff’s car is completely subordinate, §§ 7 para. 1, 17 para. 1 to 3 StVG.

[…]

The plaintiff can demand further expert costs in the amount of € 632.62.

In the absence of a specific fee agreement, the usual remuneration within the meaning of Section 632 (2) BGB is decisive for the amount of the expert’s fees.

The amount of the reimbursement of further expert costs requested by the plaintiff is based on Section 249 (2) sentence 1 BGB, according to which the amount required to restore the original condition is expressly to be paid. According to the principles of damages law, the injured party is thus free to choose the means of remedying the damage (see BGH NJW 2003, 2085). In principle, he may take the course of action to remedy the damage that he considers to be in his best interests (BGH VersR 2005, 558, 559), so that as a rule he is entitled to commission a qualified expert of his choice to prepare an expert opinion on the damage (BGH NJW 2007, 1450). In principle, there is no review of this right of choice.

However, the injured party can only demand reimbursement from the injuring party in accordance with § 249 Para. 2 BGB for the costs necessary to repair the damage which, from the point of view of a reasonable, economically-minded person in the position of the injured party, appear appropriate and reasonable (BGH NJW 1992, 302). According to the principle of economic efficiency, he is obliged to choose the more economical way of remedying the damage within the scope of what is reasonable for him, provided that he can influence the amount of the costs to be incurred for remedying the damage. When assessing which repair costs are necessary, consideration must also be given to the individual situation of the injured party, in particular his special possibilities of knowledge and influence as well as the difficulties that may exist for him (BGH NJW 1992, 302). Furthermore, the injured party should not be expected to carry out market research on the market accessible to him in order to find an expert who is as cost-effective as possible for the injuring party and his liability insurance, although he then runs the risk of commissioning an expert who later proves to be too expensive in the process without making further inquiries (BGH NJW 2007, 1450).

The remuneration owed to the expert within the framework of § 632 Para. 1 BGB had to be within the scope of what was necessary for restoration in accordance with § 249 Para. 2 BGB (BGH NJW 2007, 1450).

Within the framework of Section 249 (2) sentence 1 BGB, the necessary costs are to be estimated, whereby the type of estimation basis is not specified by Section 287 ZPO. The BVSK fee survey (Bundesverband der freiberuflichen und unabhängigen Sachverständigen für das Kraftfahrzeugwesen e.V) can be used as the basis for estimating the amount required for expert remuneration (OLG Munich, reference decision of 12.03.2015, Ref. 10 U 579/15 – juris; OLG Munich, judgment of 26.02.2016 – 10 U 579/15, BeckRS 2016, 04574). In the present case, the BVSK survey from 2024 is relevant.

The appropriate basic fee (excluding VAT) is determined according to the HB V corridor. This is justified by the fact that the majority of BVSK members (50 % to 60 %) charge within this corridor depending on the amount of damage and it is therefore the usual remuneration of an expert for a standard damage report.

This fee survey is – as far as can be seen – the only existing list on the billing practices of loss adjusters on a broader factual basis. The decision of the BGH of 22.07.2014 (Ref. VI ZR 357/13) only deemed the 2013 BVSK survey to be unsustainable with regard to the ancillary costs survey. The 2015 BVSK survey expressly took this into account with regard to the BGH’s decision. In its ruling of 24.10.2017, the BGH also confirmed in principle the possibility of estimating the necessary amount of an expert’s fee on the basis of the BVSK fee survey, so that the usability of the BVSK fee survey 2024 is not excluded, at least in the light of the BGH’s previous case law.

There are no fundamental objections to the assessment of the necessary expert costs based on the amount of damage, even in view of the defendant’s submission. A motor vehicle expert does not exceed the limits of legally admissible pricing simply by setting an appropriate flat-rate fee based on the amount of damage. As a rule, damage appraisals serve to facilitate the realization of claims for damages. The correct determination of the amount of damages is owed as a success; the expert is liable for this. Therefore, an appropriate flat-rate fee based on the amount of damage takes into account the fact that the expert’s fee is the consideration for determining the economic value of the injured party’s claim, which is a decisive factor according to case law (see BGH, judgment of 23.01.2007, file no. VI ZR 67/06, VersR 2007, 560).

At € 697.51, the basic fee charged is below the BVSK corridor HB V of € 756.00 to € 830.00 for a calculated net loss of € 4,864.44 and is therefore not objectionable.

The plaintiff can also demand compensation for the photo costs. These are not covered by the basic fee. What is to be compensated or should be compensated by the basic fee must be determined by interpreting the contract. The expert owes an intellectual work (Busche in Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, 9th edition 2023, § 631 para. 151), so that photo costs, writing costs as well as postage and telephone costs are not to be regarded as normally incurred costs.

The photo costs are to be set at € 2.00 per photo, which results in an amount of € 32.00 for 16 photos. The expert opinion shows that 16 photographs were taken. Which photo is not considered necessary by the defendant has not been explained and is also not apparent.

With regard to the writing costs, an amount of € 1.80 per page and thus an amount of € 21.60 for 12 pages of expert opinion is to be recognized. In this respect, a reduction of the pages with regard to “copied in” text modules is not appropriate. The compilation is also associated with typing work.

[…]

signed. […] Presiding Judge at the Regional Court

Announced on 27.10.2025