After a traffic accident, the victim can choose whether his claims against the opponent's motor vehicle liability insurance on the basis of accumulated repair costs (filing of the workshop account) or expert basis (so-called "fictitious damage calculation") settles. The latter is of particular interest be if the injured party can eliminate the damage cost in their own work or with the help of friends self / wants.
The "fictitious claims settlement" instructed the victim to a vehicle-usually experts to prepare a damage report. The car experts would then calculate the amount of damages based on the known usual workshop prices in the region, is asking at what price a workshop carried out the repair. The calculation includes the expected time of work and the hourly rate of the workshop. In addition, the costs will be exchanged for replacement parts.
Unfortunately, it comes from This "fictitious damage calculation" but often conflict with the enemy vehicle liability insurance policy on the amount of recoverable damages. This represented, for example, then the opinion of the experts had assumed too high hourly rates
and also the spare parts could be cheaper to buy. The insurers argue, for example, the repair could have been held in a manufacturer-authorized repair achieved more cheaply in a "free" car repair workshop. Such "free" workshop make repairs usually at much lower hourly rates than by the service station. Not infrequently there are also for the spare parts do not "mark-UPE (UPE -" retail price "of the manufacturer) was calculated.
is from a legal point of view, therefore, first, the question is whether to put in the "constructive damage calculation on the hourly rate of service station or on the prices of the" free "workshop. For spare parts prices, the calculation is to be based is, the question of whether regional workshops are to be included in contract UPE usual bonuses in the calculation of damages.
While the first question in any event held in this respect the supreme court is that of calculating the hourly rates a "workshop" can be used, there is the question of the UPE-bonuses no uniform national law. The district court middle has now acknowledged in a recent decision (mid-AG 111 C 3246/06) the UPE-ups as part of the notional loss.
Conclusion:
At least in Berlin should not accept the victim of a reduction in vehicle damage reports calculated the amount of damage to the UPE-ups so without protest. Brought against the reduction made in any case has good prospects of success.
Communicated by lawyer Werner
(Source: NJW 529 f., 2008)
0 comments:
Post a Comment