Favorable Normal Rate After An Accident Is Mandatory

Table of contents:

Favorable Normal Rate After An Accident Is Mandatory
Favorable Normal Rate After An Accident Is Mandatory

Video: Favorable Normal Rate After An Accident Is Mandatory

Video: Favorable Normal Rate After An Accident Is Mandatory
Video: Utilitarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #36 2023, September
Anonim

The Federal Court of Justice has clarified the question of the rental car rates after an accident. Even prepayment does not prevent you from renting the cheaper normal rate.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has clarified the question of permissible tariffs for rented accident replacement vehicles. In a new judgment of March 6, 2007 (Az: VI ZR 36/06), the BGH made it clear that injured parties may be obliged to choose a cheaper normal rate instead of an accident replacement rate for the rental car, said the Auto- und Reiseclub Deutschland (ARCD) With.

Price comparison worthwhile

In the present case, the plaintiff rented a vehicle at the accident replacement rate for 1062 euros while his own car was being repaired, even though the car rental company had indicated a lower normal rate. The opposing liability insurance transferred only 585 euros to the plaintiff, referring to the normal rate in the settlement.

The revision before the BGH following negative judgments by the lower courts was also negative. The plaintiff pretended to have rejected the normal rate because he should pay a deposit and pay in advance. The BGH dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the Mühlhausen regional court. The defendant insurance company informed the plaintiff in a letter that there were enormous price differences for rental cars and that a price comparison was therefore always worthwhile. The rental company would also have given a corresponding hint.

Prepayment can be requested

The plaintiff would have had to choose the “economic way of renting at the normal rate” or had to inform the opposing insurance company and ask for advance payment if he did not want to appear. In this respect, there is a “legally relevant violation of the duty to minimize damage”.

In addition, the injured party can generally be expected to "advance costs incurred in connection with the repair without resorting to a bank loan from their own resources if this is possible without any particular restriction in the accustomed lifestyle". The plaintiff should have informed the opposing insurance company beforehand and demanded a corresponding payment on account in order not to be left with part of the costs.

Recommended: