After a not-at-fault accident the other party's insurer bears the appraiser's fee. Where the limits lie, and why there is no fixed minor-damage threshold.
In short: After a not-at-fault accident, the other party's motor liability insurer pays for the damage appraisal. The basis is § 249 (2) sentence 1 BGB (German civil code): the cost of the appraisal forms part of the recoverable loss, so far as obtaining it was necessary and appropriate. This does not apply to a claim on your own comprehensive cover, where the insurance contract governs. Where fault is shared, the amount is reduced in line with the liability split.
The liability insurer of the party who caused the accident pays. The cost of an automotive appraisal report is among the financial losses recoverable under § 249 (2) sentence 1 BGB. It is not an extra the injured party has asked for but part of the loss itself, because the extent of the damage cannot be quantified without a professional assessment.
You can claim the amount directly from the other party's insurer. § 115 (1) VVG (German insurance contract act) gives you a direct claim against the liability insurer, so you do not have to pursue the other driver personally. Liability itself follows from §§ 7, 17, 18 StVG (German road traffic act).
The appraisal is reimbursed so far as it was necessary and appropriate in order to pursue the claim. What governs here is not the insurer's later view but the view of a sensible, economically minded injured party at the time of instructing the appraiser. This subject-related approach to assessing loss relieves you of knowledge you could not have had on the day of the accident.
Case law: BGH, judgment of 30 November 2004 – VI ZR 365/03, and BGH, judgment of 22 July 2014 – VI ZR 357/13: appraiser's fees are recoverable restoration costs where obtaining the appraisal was necessary and appropriate from the injured party's point of view at the time of instruction.
No. There is no contract between you and the other party's liability insurer from which a right to give instructions could follow. Your claim is a statutory claim in damages, not a claim for benefits under a policy. A referral to the other side's assessment service or partner appraiser therefore does not bind you.
You may instruct a qualified appraiser of your own choosing and are not obliged to compare prices beforehand. The injured party owes no duty to shop around for the cheapest provider, following BGH, judgment of 11 February 2014 – VI ZR 225/13, and BGH, judgment of 22 July 2014 – VI ZR 357/13. Whether the fee actually charged was reasonable in amount is a separate question; the other side remains free to examine that.
Where you claim on your own Kasko (comprehensive) cover, you generally pay for an appraisal you commissioned yourself. The reason is a different legal starting point: this is not damages under § 249 BGB but a benefit under an insurance contract. What is owed is set out in the general terms of your motor policy (AKB).
The comprehensive insurer may therefore, as a rule, instruct an appraiser of its own or refer you to a named one. If you and the insurer disagree about the size of the loss, the AKB usually provide for an appraisal procedure, whose statutory framework follows from § 84 VVG.
| Question | Liability claim (caused by another) | Comprehensive claim (own policy) |
|---|---|---|
| Legal basis | § 249 (2) sentence 1 BGB, §§ 7, 17, 18 StVG, § 115 (1) VVG | the insurance contract and the AKB, § 84 VVG |
| Choice of appraiser | free; no duty to compare prices | the insurer may instruct or name its own appraiser |
| Who bears the appraisal cost | the other party's liability insurer | where you instruct one yourself, generally the policyholder |
| Dispute about the size of the loss | resolved in court, assessment under § 287 ZPO | appraisal procedure under the AKB |
Careful: The exact scope of comprehensive cover depends on the wording of the AKB in your particular contract. There is no uniform nationwide rule, the model terms are not binding, and individual insurers depart from them.
There is no nationally uniform minor-damage threshold. The Federal Court of Justice did use the concept of minor damage in BGH, judgment of 30 November 2004 – VI ZR 365/03, but did not lay down a figure. Instead it requires the individual case to be examined: was the appraisal necessary in order to enforce the claim?
The amounts circulating in practice come from the lower courts and from the commentary literature, not from a ruling of the Federal Court of Justice. The local, regional and higher regional courts set the threshold at somewhere between € 600.00 and € 1,000.00, and they do so differently from region to region. Anyone presenting a single figure as settled law is oversimplifying.
The following selection from twelve decisions reviewed shows the range:
| Court | Case number | Date | Threshold applied |
|---|---|---|---|
| AG Ratzeburg | 17 C 95/21 | 20 Dec 2021 | € 600.00 |
| AG Braunschweig | 120 C 1071/21 | 12 Jan 2022 | € 700.00 |
| AG Pforzheim | 3 C 739/24 | 1 Oct 2024 | € 700.00 |
| OLG München | 10 U 579/15 | 26 Feb 2016 | € 750.00 |
| LG Freiburg | 3 S 145/16 | 24 Nov 2016 | € 750.00 |
| AG Lübeck | 29 C 1246/21 | 27 Oct 2021 | € 811.21 |
| AG Rostock | 43 C 1/17 | 25 Apr 2017 | € 822.42 (incl. VAT) |
| AG Passau | 15 C 872/22 | 11 Apr 2023 | € 993.00 |
| OLG Hamm | I-7 U 45/21 | 28 Jun 2022 | € 1,018.43 (incl. VAT) |
The table does not answer what applies to your vehicle; it shows that the courts decide inconsistently. Jurisdiction lies with the court at the place of the accident or of your residence, and its approach may differ from that of the next town. Below the threshold each of these courts applies, they consider a simpler assessment of the loss, such as a repair estimate, to be sufficient.
The more recent trend points towards a narrow reading of the minor-damage threshold. The local court of Bad Neustadt a.d. Saale held, by judgment of 28 May 2026 – 1 C 21/26, that appraisal costs were recoverable even where the damage appeared modest from the outside. That is a single decision of a local court, from which no general entitlement can be derived.
Careful: Whether damage falls within the minor range often cannot be judged from the outside. Modern bumper covers conceal structural members, sensors and brackets. A look at the paintwork therefore says little about the actual size of the loss.
Where fault is shared, the other side reimburses the appraisal costs only in part. The liability split, which follows from weighing the respective contributions under §§ 7, 17, 18 StVG, is applied to every head of loss. The cost of the appraisal is treated no differently from repair costs or loss-of-use compensation.
If, for example, you bear a one-third share, that proportion of the appraisal costs stays with you. There are no fixed quotas for particular accident constellations; they are formed case by case and remain open until liability is settled.
So for as long as the split of liability is unresolved, a cost risk remains with you. At the same time it is precisely in these cases that the condition of the vehicle, the damage pattern and the direction of impact are documented before any repair. That documentation cannot be made up for later.
Since 2024 the risk of an inflated invoice has in principle been borne by the party who caused the damage, not by you. By judgment of 12 March 2024 – VI ZR 280/22 the Federal Court of Justice transferred the principles of the "repair shop risk" to the appraiser. The reasoning: from the moment you place the instruction and hand over the vehicle, your ability to know and to influence what happens is limited.
That line comes from a set of five decisions of the Federal Court of Justice of 16 January 2024 – VI ZR 38/22, VI ZR 239/22, VI ZR 253/22, VI ZR 266/22 and VI ZR 51/23. Under those rulings, inflated work or work not actually performed falls to the account of the party who caused the damage, so far as the injured party could not recognise it.
One limit remains: the protection does not apply to fees that are obviously excessive. Nor is the invoice total as such decisive, 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, regardless of whether the appraiser belongs to that association.
Case law: BGH, judgment of 12 March 2024 – VI ZR 280/22: the principles developed for the repair shop risk apply to the appraiser risk as well, because once the vehicle has been handed over the injured party's ability to know and to influence matters is limited.
With an assignment you transfer your claim for reimbursement of the appraisal costs to the appraisal firm, which then bills the other party's insurer directly. Under this model you do not pay the fee yourself up front. The assignment covers only the monetary claim for the appraisal costs, not your other heads of loss.
You remain the appraiser's contractual partner. If the insurer pays only part of the fee, for instance because of a liability split or because incidental charges are disputed, a balance may remain outstanding. How that is handled depends on the particular assignment agreement, which is why it is worth reading its wording before signing.
One point concerns the legal position arising from the repair shop risk. Where a repair invoice has not yet been paid, the injured party may rely on that principle but can then only demand payment to the repair shop; that legal position cannot be assigned, under § 399 BGB. For assignment models this is the practically most important limitation arising from the decisions of 16 January 2024.
Two deadlines matter for the reimbursement of costs. The loss event must be notified to the other party's liability insurer in text form within two weeks of your becoming aware of it, under § 119 (1) VVG; sending it in time is sufficient to meet the deadline. Missing it does not automatically mean losing the claim; the consequences follow § 120 VVG.
The claim itself becomes time-barred after three years under §§ 195, 199 BGB, counted from the end of the year in which it arose and in which you learned of the damage and of the party responsible. For as long as the claim is registered with the insurer, the limitation period is suspended under § 115 (2) sentence 3 VVG; the suspension ends only when the insurer's decision reaches you in text form.
Careful: There is no statutory deadline within which the liability insurer must settle. In practice, four to six weeks are quoted where liability is clear and the documentation complete. The review period only begins once the insurer has all the necessary documents.
Not necessarily. After a not-at-fault accident, the claim for reimbursement of the appraisal costs can be assigned to the appraisal firm, which then bills the other party's liability insurer directly. You remain the appraiser's contractual partner, so if the fee is cut a balance may remain outstanding.
No. In its judgment of 30 November 2004 – VI ZR 365/03 the Federal Court of Justice laid down no fixed figure but required the individual case to be examined. The lower courts apply thresholds of roughly € 600.00 to € 1,000.00. There is no uniform nationwide limit.
No. There is no contractual relationship between you and the other party's liability insurer from which a right to give instructions could follow. You may instruct a qualified appraiser of your own choosing. The insurer may, however, dispute the necessity and the level of the fee in the individual case.
On a comprehensive claim the insurance contract governs, not § 249 BGB. The insurer may instruct or name an appraiser. If you instruct one on your own initiative, you generally bear the cost. The precise scope is set out in the AKB of your policy.
The appraisal costs are reduced by your share of liability, like every other head of loss. With a one-third share of liability, the other side reimburses two thirds of the cost. The split follows from weighing the respective contributions under §§ 7, 17, 18 StVG and is formed case by case.
Following the Federal Court of Justice's judgment of 12 March 2024 – VI ZR 280/22, the party who caused the damage bears the appraiser risk, so far as an inflated invoice was not recognisable to the injured party. The protection does not apply to obviously excessive fees. The BVSK fee survey is recognised as a basis for assessment under § 287 ZPO.
The claim becomes time-barred after three years under §§ 195, 199 BGB, from the end of the year in which you learned of the damage and of the party responsible. The other party's insurer must be notified of the accident in text form within two weeks of your becoming aware of it, under § 119 (1) VVG.
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.
