After the attacks on fictitious damage settlement, the insurance industry has apparently now increasingly turned to settlement on the basis of repair costs. Recently, individual items on repair invoices and on the repair route have been called into question more frequently, although they are also reflected in exactly the same way in the damage appraisal

After a traffic accident in the spring of 2017 that was not her fault, our client initially contacted a repair shop and filled out a (multi-page) questionnaire with them at the request of the insurance company. What she did not know, however – and what the insurance company did not point out to her, of

Decision: Bias of an expert witness, Schweinfurt Regional Court, decision dated 19.09.2017. Requests for bias only prove to be justified extremely rarely, since the court-appointed expert is generally granted a wide margin of discretion by case law with regard to the preparation of the expert opinion. This is probably also against the background that it

Once again we had to deal with unjustified reductions by a liability insurer. After the latter was not prepared out of court to reimburse the UPE surcharges calculated in the damage appraisal, an action was brought before the Local Court of Rüsselsheim (where the accident occurred) and an expert appraisal was obtained from it. The

Who is not familiar with the business model – outside business hours, private (mainly discount store) parking spaces are also made available to the public for parking vehicles for a fee. If no parking ticket is issued, the license plate number of the vehicle is documented and the owner is held liable for the alleged

Many victims of traffic accidents – if they decide to settle the claim themselves and without the assistance of a lawyer with the other party’s liability insurance – receive mail from the insurance company in the form of an “inspection report” reducing the injured party’s repair costs resulting from a cost estimate or an expert