Our success for the client

In a recent traffic accident case before the Local Court of Schweinfurt, we were able to achieve complete success for our client. The court ordered the defendants to pay a total of €1,191.76 plus interest and to delete unlawfully stored data from the insurance industry’s reference and information system (HIS).

The special features of the case

Loss of use for special vehicle

Our client used a special vehicle that had been converted for wheelchair access. After the traffic accident, which was not her fault, the opposing insurance company attempted to significantly reduce the compensation for loss of use:

• Dispute over repair time: The defendants only wanted to recognize 5 instead of the actual 14 repair days
• Dispute over loss of use group: The insurance company only wanted to pay group F (€38 per day) instead of the appropriate group H (€65 per day)
• Argument vehicle age: Due to the age of over 10 years, a downgrading by two groups should take place

Our successful argumentation

We were able to convince the court that:

1. The 14-day repair period was to be recognized in full, as delays that are not the fault of the injured party are at the expense of the injuring party
2. The classification in loss of use group H was justified because it was a special vehicle converted for wheelchair access (originally even group K)
3. A downgrade due to the age of the vehicle has already been taken into account

Data protection success: deletion from the HIS

Another important success: the court ordered the defendant to have all personal data deleted from the insurance industry’s information system.

The court took the view that a deletion can be claimed in any case if the injured party has proven the complete, proper and professional repair after a fictitious settlement and there is no mercantile reduction in value. The repair work was proven by an invoice and there was no mercantile reduction in value. There was therefore no further interest in storing the data.

Reimbursement of pre-trial legal fees

In addition, the defendants were ordered to pay the pre-trial legal fees in the amount of € 433.76. The court clarified that the injured party’s claim for compensation for pre-trial legal fees must generally be based on the value of the claim corresponding to the justified claim for damages. The timely filing of the claim was plausible.

Conclusion

This case impressively demonstrates the importance of consistent legal representation after traffic accidents. Insurance companies often try to reduce justified claims – especially in the case of:

• Special vehicles (e.g. conversions for the disabled)
• Longer repair times
• Data protection claims

We enforce your rights – from loss of use to data deletion!

Full text

Local Court Schweinfurt

Ref: 1 C 774/25

ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE

In the legal dispute

[…]

• Plaintiff –

Attorneys of record: Rechtsanwälte Grüne & Partner Rechtsanwälte mbB, Mainberger Straße 36, 97422 Schweinfurt, Gz: 566/24 GG

vs.

[…]

Counsel of record 1 and 2: […]

for damages

the Local Court of Schweinfurt by the judge at the Local Court […] issues the following order on 15.01.2026 on the basis of the facts of 29.12.2025 without an oral hearing with the consent of the parties pursuant to Section 128 (2) ZPO (Code of Civil Procedure)

Final judgment

1. The defendants are ordered as joint and several debtors to pay the plaintiff € 758.00 plus interest thereon at a rate of 5 percentage points above the base interest rate since 19.09.2024 and a further € 433.76 plus interest thereon at a rate of 5 percentage points above the base interest rate since 30.08.2025.
2. Defendant 2) is ordered to arrange for the deletion of the personal data of the plaintiff and her vehicle that it passed on to informa HIS GmbH in the context of the claims settlement in dispute.
3. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the costs of the proceedings.
4. The judgment is provisionally enforceable. The defendants may avert the plaintiff’s enforcement by providing security amounting to 110% of the amount enforceable on the basis of the judgment, unless the plaintiff provides security amounting to 110% of the amount to be enforced prior to enforcement.

Resolution

The amount in dispute is set at € 1,758.00.

Facts of the case

The plaintiff is claiming damages from the defendants for a traffic accident that occurred on 27.08.2024 in the […] area.

The full liability of the defendant on the merits is undisputed between the parties, the remaining loss of use damage and a claim for deletion from the information system of the insurance industry are disputed.

Material damage was caused to the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff’s vehicle was repaired between 24.04.2025 and 06.05.2025.

The plaintiff is of the opinion that she is entitled to compensation for loss of use for the duration of the repair and that her vehicle should be assigned to loss of use group H, resulting in an amount of € 14 x 65 = € 910.

The defendant 2) settled the claim in the amount of € 152 before the court.

Defendant 2) forwarded the plaintiff’s personal data to informa HIS GmbH, Kreuzberger Ring 68, 65205 Wiesbaden, at least data on the plaintiff’s vehicle such as vehicle identification number and type of damage.

The plaintiff’s vehicle has since been repaired.

It is of the opinion that, due to the repair, the storage of personal data is no longer necessary.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. The defendants are ordered as joint and several debtors to pay the plaintiff € 758.00 plus interest thereon at a rate of 5 percentage points above the prime rate since 19.09.2024.
2. Defendant 2) is ordered to arrange for the deletion of the personal data of the plaintiff and her vehicle that it passed on to informa HIS GmbH in the context of the claims settlement in dispute.
3. The defendants are ordered as joint and several debtors to pay the plaintiff further pre-trial legal costs in the amount of € 433.76 plus interest thereon at a rate of 5 percentage points above the base interest rate since service of the action.

The defendants request that the action be dismissed.

They are of the opinion that compensation for loss of use for a period of 14 days is not necessary. The damage report predicts a repair period of 5 days. It is not clear why the repair took 14 days. It is also not clear why the repairs were carried out on a Thursday, i.e. over a weekend.

Furthermore, the vehicle should not be assigned to loss of use group H, but to F. Due to the age of the vehicle (older than 10 years/ EZ: 9.10.2012), a downgrading by 2 groups should be made, therefore only € 38.00 per day should be applied.

With the consent of the parties, the court ruled without an oral hearing in accordance with Section 128 (2) ZPO.

Reasons for the decision

I) The admissible action is well-founded. The plaintiff has a further claim for damages against the defendants in the tenor of the claim.

1. There are no objections to the estimate of 14 days with regard to the repair period.

According to the plaintiff’s submission, the vehicle was brought in on 24.04.2025. The repair also began on this day. Reference is also made to the further course of the repair according to the repair schedule in Annex K3. Any delays in the repair of a vehicle that are not due to the fault of the injured party are generally at the expense of the damaging party. No fault is evident, the further course of events was not within the plaintiff’s sphere of influence.

2. The loss of use group was to be determined as group H in accordance with Section 287 ZPO. It had to be taken into account that the plaintiff’s vehicle was a special vehicle that had been converted for wheelchair access. In principle, it was classified in group K according to the expert opinion obtained before the court. It remained unclear what was wrong with this. On the plaintiff’s side, a downgrading was also made due to the age of the vehicle. Reference can be made to the statement of 29.09.2025.

II) The claim for interest arises from §§ 286, 288 BGB.

III) The plaintiff could also claim under Art. 17 para. 1 lit. a) GDPR that the defendants work towards deleting the – undisputed – data reported to the HIS.

The conditions under which a claim for deletion of data from the HIS can be made are disputed. The court agrees with the view that deletion can be claimed in any case if the injured party in a traffic accident has proven complete, proper and professional repair after a fictitious settlement and there is no mercantile reduction in value of the vehicle.

The specific repair work is evidenced by the invoice in Annex K2. According to the expert opinion obtained before the court, there is no mercantile reduction in value of the vehicle.

In the opinion of the court, there is therefore no further interest in storing the data.

IV) The injured party’s claim for compensation for pre-trial legal fees in relation to the tortfeasor is generally to be based on the value of the claim that corresponds to the justified claim for damages (e.g. BGH NJW 2018, 938. Reference can be made to the calculation in the statement of claim. The plaintiff plausibly argued that the order to sue was issued by telephone in good time. There is no indication that this was not the case.

V) The decision on costs is based on section 91 (1) sentence 1 ZPO, the ruling on provisional enforceability is based on sections 708 no. 11, 711 sentences 1 and 2 in conjunction with 709 sentence 2 ZPO.