A second accident before repairs: What happens to the first damages claim?

First a garage door, then a road accident

In December 2022, a falling garage door damaged a car’s roof. The first expert report stated a replacement value of EUR 2,900 and a salvage value of EUR 685. The defendant held responsible for the garage door damage initially paid EUR 860. Liability in principle was undisputed (BGH, VI ZR 100/25, paragraphs 1 to 5).

Before any repair, the same car sustained damage to its right side in a road accident in February 2023. For this second incident, the owner received EUR 1,900 from the other driver’s liability insurer. She also received EUR 200 from a salvage buyer for the vehicle damaged in the second accident. She claimed a further EUR 1,355 for the first incident: EUR 2,900 less EUR 685 and the EUR 860 already paid (paragraphs 2 and 3).

The lower courts rejected this claim. The regional court treated the later total receipts of EUR 2,100 as a higher salvage value. The Federal Court of Justice held that this conflation was legally incorrect (paragraphs 5 to 8).

What a notional damages assessment calculates

Under section 249(2), sentence 1, of the German Civil Code, a person suffering property damage may demand the money required to restore their position instead of restoration itself. The case concerned a calculation based on an expert report of the cost of a notional replacement. The relevant amount was replacement expenditure after deducting salvage value: the value of an equivalent undamaged vehicle before the first incident less its salvage value after that incident (paragraph 9).

This does not mean that the full vehicle value must be paid for every loss. The calculation depends on the selected method of assessment and substantiated valuations. The statutory VAT limitation also remains: under section 249(2), sentence 2, VAT on property damage is recoverable only if and to the extent actually incurred.

Why the second insurance payment is not sale proceeds

If a damaged car is actually sold for more than the value stated in the expert report, the higher proceeds must be taken into account under the conditions described by the Federal Court of Justice. This applies to the extent that the increase does not result from efforts going beyond what is required of the claimant. However, the EUR 1,900 in this case was not a purchase price for the car. The insurer was compensating a further loss. The subsequent sale actually yielded only EUR 200 (paragraphs 10 and 11).

Nor did the rules on offsetting benefits justify reducing the first claim here. It is not enough that substantial sums have been received for the same vehicle overall. A benefit must be connected with the particular damaging event and attributable to it following an evaluative assessment. The judgment found no such connection between the garage door damage and the later accident and its settlement (paragraphs 12 to 16).

Which questions remained open despite the judgment

The Federal Court of Justice did not itself award the claimant the EUR 1,355 sought. It remained striking that the first report gave a salvage value of EUR 685, whereas the second gave a replacement value of EUR 2,100. This difference required examination against the reports. It might be explicable; alternatively, the first salvage value might have been too low or the second replacement value too high (paragraph 17).

According to the court, even a possible overpayment for the second accident would not reduce the claim arising from the first incident. Whether the first calculation was sound remained a separate question. The case was therefore remitted for a fresh hearing and decision. No subsequent outcome of those continued proceedings has been verified for this article (paragraphs 18 and 19; operative part).

Two claim files rather than one combined total

Our assessment: when a claim is reduced, first establish which incident and purpose each amount relates to. Referring to a later insurance payment does not replace examination of the first expert report. Equally, the judgment does not permit the same loss to be claimed twice or incorrect valuations to be used.

Our own simplified example: following parking damage, an unrepaired car is damaged weeks later in an independent rear-end collision. The party responsible for the first loss refers to the payment for the second accident. Separate records of the vehicle’s condition before and after each incident and a breakdown of each payment’s purpose assist the assessment. The example assumes independent events and a comparable notional assessment; it does not resolve a disputed liability share or the amount of damages.

• Retain both complete expert reports, including photographs and valuation explanations.
• Place incident dates, affected vehicle areas and any repairs in chronological order.
• Organise settlement letters and incoming payments separately for each claim.
• Document the sale agreement and purchase price actually received.
• If a claim is reduced, request the specific calculation and its reasoning.

When a review may be useful

A review is particularly useful where payment for a later accident is deducted as a higher salvage value or the reports state markedly different vehicle values. This article concerns German damages law and claims against the party responsible for each incident. Benefits under your own comprehensive motor insurance, connected damaging events and other methods of assessment require separate consideration.