Insurer cuts your repair bill: Who bears the workshop risk?

First establish which insurer is making the deduction

Our first question about a deduction is whether you are seeking damages from the other party or benefits under your own motor damage policy. Even after the same accident, these claims may follow different rules. An assessment stating lower repair costs does not answer that preliminary question.

For third-party liability, section 249(2) of the German Civil Code provides the starting point: compensation generally covers the amount required for restoration. The BGH also considers what the injured party could know and control. Own-damage cover instead depends on the contractual promise, particularly the actual policy wording. Sources: VI ZR 253/22, paragraphs 10 to 15; IV ZR 235/25, paragraphs 12 to 15.

Third-party liability: The workshop is not entirely under your control

A person entrusting an accident-damaged vehicle to a specialist workshop cannot normally supervise every operation and calculation. If they are not at fault in selecting or supervising the workshop, excessive material or labour charges and inefficient working practices may therefore still be recoverable from the liable party. The BGH explains this in VI ZR 253/22, paragraphs 14 to 16. This allocates risk between the injured and liable parties; it does not give the workshop permission to invoice incorrectly.

The limit matters: the damage must have been caused by the accident, and the invoiced work must form part of repairing that damage. An unrelated repair carried out at the same time does not become an accident expense through this doctrine. The injured party retains the burden of substantiating and proving these matters, paragraphs 17 to 19. Fault in selecting or supervising the workshop can also prevent reliance on the doctrine.

Bill still unpaid? The recipient of payment matters

The judgment of 16 January 2024, VI ZR 253/22, can also protect an injured party whose repair bill remains unpaid. To rely on the workshop-risk doctrine, however, they must seek payment of the outstanding amount to the workshop, concurrently with assignment of any relevant claims against it. In practical terms, the liable party should pay but retain the ability to pursue any overpayment against the workshop. See paragraphs 20 to 27.

A person who instead seeks payment to themselves while the bill remains unpaid bears the workshop risk under paragraph 27 and may have to prove that the work was performed and necessary. The position differs if the bill has already been paid in full, paragraph 26. Payment records and any assignments already signed therefore belong in the assessment.

The BGH did not finally award the claimant all outstanding costs in 2024. It partly set aside the appeal judgment and remitted the case. Matters still to be examined included whether the damage was accident-related and whether the claimant was herself at fault, paragraphs 30 to 34.

September 2026 ruling: Own-damage cover is different

The judgment of 9 September 2026, IV ZR 235/25, concerned EUR 389.01 deducted by a comprehensive motor insurer in addition to the excess. According to the court findings, the disputed work was objectively unnecessary. The claimant sought payment to the workshop against assignment of potential claims, but her appeal on points of law was unsuccessful.

The BGH interpreted clause A.2.6.2 of that policy as generally excluding unjustified invoice items. To that extent, the workshop risk normally remains with the policyholder. Lack of technical expertise alone does not change this. The contractual insurance promise is decisive, rather than the allocation of risk against an accident-causing party, paragraphs 9 and 13 to 15.

Paragraph 16 makes an important distinction: a different assessment may be justified where the insurer selected a particular workshop and the policyholder followed that instruction. There was no such involvement by the insurer in the case decided. This is not a blanket assurance that every approved-workshop arrangement covers every invoice item.

Which documents help with the next step

Our practical recommendation is to establish the party against whom the claim is made, the payment status and the reason for the deduction first. Only then can it be assessed whether the workshop-risk doctrine applies or whether individual invoice items need technical and contractual examination. A deduction letter neither automatically means that you must ultimately bear the balance nor entitles you to ignore the workshop bill.

• Gather accident records, photographs and any damage assessment.
• Keep the repair order, complete invoice and proof of payment ready.
• Save the insurer’s deduction letter and supporting assessment.
• Include assignment documents and, for own-damage cover, policy terms, workshop instructions and cost approvals.