News

 

A young man had organised a party at his parents' house. In the middle of the night, presumably when one of the guests was on his way home, he drove into the car of the host's father, damaging the front end.

The father then claimed compensation for the damage. However, the insurer of the person who caused the accident rejected the claim on the grounds that the accident had been planned. The insurer argued that the guest had deliberately driven into the vehicle in collusion with the guest's father so that they could claim the sum insured. In the case of a so-called 'genuine' traffic accident, the insurer must pay for the damage caused and compensate the injured party. However, if the insurer believes that the accident may have been manipulated, it has the burden of proof.

This case was brought before the Lübeck District Court. As part of its investigation, the court heard a number of witnesses and, after questioning the driver and other guests at the party, concluded that it must have been an accident. The Lübeck District Court also called in a technical expert who came to the same conclusion. According to the evidence, there was no agreement between the host's father and the driver who damaged the car. As a result, the Lübeck Regional Court ruled in its judgment of 26 September 2024 (case number 3 O 193/22) that the insurer had to pay for the damage if it could not prove that the accident had been arranged. The insurer therefore had to pay.

However, the situation would be different in a case where there was an accumulation of so-called evidence. This would be the case, for example, if an event took place at an inconvenient time, the case was legally very clear and several witnesses were present, even though it was not a public place but a secluded street. In such a case, the insurer could be found to be in the right with the appropriate evidence.

Source: Pixabay/headlamp-2940_1280