On a liability claim you choose the appraiser yourself. On your own comprehensive cover something else applies – and the difference decides what it costs you.
In short: After a not-at-fault accident you choose the automotive appraiser yourself. The other party's liability insurer has no right to give you instructions, because there is no contract between you and it, but a statutory claim in damages under § 249 (2) sentence 1 BGB (German civil code). It is different on your own Kasko (comprehensive) cover: there the contractual terms apply, and the insurer may appoint an appraiser of its own.
No. On a liability claim – that is, where someone else caused your loss – you decide who appraises your vehicle. A right to give instructions presupposes a contractual relationship, and none exists between you and the other driver's insurer. What you have there is a statutory claim in damages.
The claim arises from §§ 7, 17, 18 StVG (German road traffic act) in conjunction with § 249 (2) sentence 1 BGB. Under § 115 (1) VVG (German insurance contract act) you can bring it directly against the other party's liability insurer, without going through the driver personally. That direct claim does not change its nature: it remains a statutory claim in damages, not a contractual relationship giving the insurer a say in your choice of service providers.
The Federal Court of Justice has confirmed repeatedly that the cost of an appraisal report forms part of the recoverable restoration costs, so far as obtaining it was necessary and appropriate in order to pursue the claim. The yardstick is the view of a sensible, economically minded injured party at the time of instruction. You therefore do not have to compare prices between appraisal firms or survey the market before instructing one.
Case law: BGH, judgment of 30 November 2004 – VI ZR 365/03; BGH, judgment of 11 February 2014 – VI ZR 225/13; and BGH, judgment of 22 July 2014 – VI ZR 357/13. Appraiser's fees form part of the recoverable loss where obtaining the appraisal was necessary and appropriate from the injured party's point of view; there is no duty to survey the market.
On Kasko cover the choice is restricted, and that is the single most important difference. Here there is an insurance contract between you and your insurer. The scope of the benefit is not determined by § 249 BGB but by the general terms of motor insurance, the AKB, in the version applying to your particular contract.
It follows that the comprehensive insurer may, as a rule, instruct an appraiser itself or refer you to one it names. If you instruct a firm of your own choosing on your own initiative, you generally bear the cost. Where you disagree with the assessed size of the loss, the AKB usually provide for an appraisal procedure based on § 84 VVG. Each side names an appraiser, and the two together appoint an umpire.
The precise scope of these provisions depends on the wording of your contract. The AKB are non-binding model terms from which individual insurers depart. There is no uniform nationwide rule on how far a comprehensive insurer may steer the choice of appraiser. Reading your own policy documents is therefore the only reliable route.
| Question | Other party's liability cover | Your own comprehensive cover |
|---|---|---|
| When does it apply? | Someone else caused the damage and is liable for it | You claim under your own policy, for example for damage you caused yourself, wildlife, hail or theft |
| Legal relationship | Statutory claim in damages; no contract with the insurer | Insurance contract between you and your insurer |
| Legal basis | § 249 (2) sentence 1 BGB, §§ 7, 17, 18 StVG, § 115 (1) VVG | The AKB in the version applying to your contract, § 84 VVG |
| Who chooses the appraiser? | You do, freely and without the other side's consent | Generally the insurer; a referral to a named appraiser is permissible |
| Who bears the appraisal cost? | The party who caused the damage, or its liability insurer, so far as the appraisal was necessary | An appraisal you commission yourself is generally paid by you |
| Dispute about the size of the loss | Negotiation out of court, litigation if necessary; assessment by the court under § 287 ZPO | Appraisal procedure under the AKB, modelled on § 84 VVG |
| Does the 130 percent rule apply? | Yes, subject to the conditions developed in the case law | No; the AKB typically cap the benefit at the replacement value less the salvage value |
Careful: Establish first which route your claim is being settled through. Anyone who applies the comprehensive rules to themselves on a liability claim gives up a right they hold. Conversely, anyone who commissions their own appraisal on a comprehensive claim and expects reimbursement is often left with the invoice.
The calls usually come a few hours to a few days after the other driver reports the loss, and therefore often before you have sorted out your own paperwork. Objectively, these are offers from the other side and its legal view of the scope of reimbursement – not instructions you would have to follow.
Recurring phrasings run along these lines: they will send an appraiser of their own round shortly, it will be quicker that way. They work with partner repair shops, where the process is straightforward. For damage of this kind an appraisal is not necessary, a repair estimate will do. The cost of an appraiser you choose yourself will only be covered up to a certain amount.
Each of these statements has a kernel of truth and a limit. An insurer may offer you services and may dispute the necessity and the level of individual items. What it may not do is tell you whom to instruct. Those two levels are easily blurred in conversation, because one sounds much like the other.
Where the damage is very small. The Federal Court of Justice has used the concept of minor damage but has not laid down a nationwide figure in euros. In practice the local and regional courts draw the line at somewhere between about € 600 and about € 1,000, and they expressly decide inconsistently. There are also more recent decisions holding appraisal costs recoverable even where the damage looks modest from the outside, for example AG Bad Neustadt a.d. Saale, judgment of 28 May 2026 – 1 C 21/26. Whether a loss really falls into that range cannot be judged over the telephone, because hidden damage only becomes visible on inspection.
Because many insurers have the appraisals submitted to them re-checked by external assessment providers. That review is done at a desk, on the basis of the photographs and the calculation, without the vehicle being inspected again. The result is a review report that puts individual items lower. Payment is then made at the level of the review report, and the difference remains open for the time being.
Typical points of reduction and the legal framework for each:
Labour rates. Where you settle on a notional basis, you must accept a referral to an easily accessible, equivalent and cheaper repair option. The burden of pleading and proving equivalence and accessibility lies with the insurer (BGH, judgment of 25 September 2018 – VI ZR 65/18). A referral is unreasonable, among other cases, for vehicles that were no more than three years old at the time of the accident, where the service record is complete, and where the reference workshop is only cheaper because of special terms agreed with the insurer; the latter was decided by the Federal Court of Justice in its judgment of 28 April 2015 – VI ZR 267/14.
Transfer costs and parts surcharges. These are recoverable where they would ordinarily arise on a repair at a regional franchised dealer workshop. The lower courts handle this inconsistently; some refuse these items altogether on a notional settlement, others regularly award them.
Salvage value offers. What governs is the regional market accessible to you. You are in principle not obliged to use national online salvage exchanges and may rely on the figure determined by your appraiser (BGH, judgment of 7 December 2004 – VI ZR 119/04; BGH, judgment of 1 June 2010 – VI ZR 316/09).
The appraiser's fee itself. What decides is not the invoice total as such but the work actually carried out. The Federal Court of Justice has rejected blanket caps on incidental charges; the BVSK fee survey is recognised as a basis for assessment under § 287 ZPO, irrespective of whether the appraiser belongs to that association (BGH, judgments of 11 February 2014 – VI ZR 225/13 and 22 July 2014 – VI ZR 357/13).
Case law: BGH, judgment of 12 March 2024 – VI ZR 280/22. The principles on the repair shop risk apply to the appraiser risk as well: from the moment the instruction is given and the vehicle handed over, the injured party's ability to know and to influence matters is limited, which is why that risk does not rest with them.
Commit to nothing on the phone and ask for it in text form. You do not have to agree to a repair shop or an appraiser during the call, and you do not have to meet any deadline mentioned to you verbally. One matter-of-fact sentence is enough: you will look at the matter and reply in writing.
Notify the other party's liability insurer of the loss in text form. Under § 119 (1) VVG the injured party should report the loss event within two weeks of becoming aware of it; sending it in time is sufficient to meet the deadline. This is a duty of co-operation whose breach is governed by § 120 VVG and does not automatically mean losing the claim. Registering it also has a practical advantage: under § 115 (2) sentence 3 VVG the limitation period is suspended for as long as the claim is registered with the insurer, and the suspension ends only when a decision reaches you in text form.
Record the calls with the date, time, name and content. If you instruct an appraisal, note the time of instruction, because it is that moment which matters for the question of necessity. Do not let yourself be rushed into a decision, but do not wait unnecessarily either, because repair work and continued use of the vehicle will otherwise overlay the traces.
Bring in a lawyer practising in road traffic law where amounts are cut. Pre-litigation legal fees are regularly recoverable where the other side's liability is undisputed or predominant; a road accident involving a calculation of loss is as a rule not so straightforward a case that instructing a lawyer would be unnecessary (BGH, judgment of 29 October 2019 – VI ZR 45/19). As to how long settlement may take: there is no statutory deadline. In practice, four to six weeks are quoted for straightforward property damage with clear liability and complete documentation, counted from the point at which all the necessary documents are available.
On a liability claim you are not obliged to, because there is no contractual relationship between you and the other party's insurer. You instruct an appraiser of your own choosing. The insurer may dispute the necessity and the level of individual items later; that is something other than a right to dictate the choice.
Yes, so far as obtaining the appraisal was necessary and appropriate in order to pursue the claim. The cost forms part of the recoverable loss under § 249 (2) sentence 1 BGB. The yardstick is the view of a sensible, economically minded injured party at the time of instruction, not the insurer's later hindsight.
No, it is restricted there. On Kasko cover there is an insurance contract, and the scope of the benefit follows the AKB in the version applying to your contract. The insurer may as a rule appoint an appraiser of its own. An appraisal you commission yourself you will generally pay for out of your own pocket.
There is no fixed limit. The Federal Court of Justice has laid down no nationwide euro threshold; the lower courts draw it inconsistently at between about € 600 and about € 1,000. Because hidden damage only becomes visible on inspection, the outward appearance allows only a limited judgement.
Ask for the review report with reasons for each reduction and have it assessed by your appraiser and a lawyer. Pre-litigation legal fees are regularly recoverable where the other side's liability is undisputed or predominant. If the dispute continues, the court assesses the necessary costs under § 287 ZPO.
Under § 119 (1) VVG the injured party should report the loss event in text form within two weeks of becoming aware of it; sending it in time is sufficient. It is a duty of co-operation whose breach, under § 120 VVG, does not automatically mean losing the claim. The notification also suspends the limitation period under § 115 (2) sentence 3 VVG.
For a domestic claim there is no statutory settlement deadline. The insurer is allowed a reasonable period to examine the matter; in practice four to six weeks are quoted for straightforward property damage with clear liability, counted from the point at which all the necessary documents are available. Once in default, the insurer owes default interest under §§ 286, 288 BGB.
This article reflects the position as at 3 August 2026 and is no substitute for legal advice in an individual case. Written by PKW Gutachter Service GmbH, automotive appraisal firm, Neu Wulmstorf, Germany.
One call will clarify in two minutes which report you need.
