{"id":1270,"date":"2026-01-28T11:10:43","date_gmt":"2026-01-28T10:10:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rechtsanwalt-brandl.de\/motor-vehicle-liability-insurance\/"},"modified":"2026-02-14T00:50:24","modified_gmt":"2026-02-13T23:50:24","slug":"motor-vehicle-liability-insurance","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/rechtsanwalt-brandl.de\/en\/fields-of-law\/insurance-law\/motor-vehicle-liability-insurance\/","title":{"rendered":"Motor vehicle liability insurance"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Leaving the scene of the accident without allowing his personal details to be ascertained constitutes a breach of obligation in accordance with No. E.1.3. AKB 2008, \u00a7 28 II VVG. For the liability insurer to be released from its obligation to pay benefits, the breach of the obligation must be the cause of the insured event or the scope of the obligation to pay benefits. Even without proof of this connection, the liability insurer does not have to pay if the policyholder has fraudulently breached the obligation (\u00a7 28 III 2 VVG).<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The defendant’s appeal against the judgment of the D\u00fcsseldorf Local Court delivered on December 16, 2009, case no. 35 C 10434\/09, is dismissed at his expense.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Reasons for the decision:<\/strong><\/p>

The plaintiff was the defendant’s motor vehicle liability insurer when the defendant caused a traffic accident with his Ford Escort car in D\u00fcsseldorf on April 15, 2008. The defendant left the scene of the accident without allowing his personal details to be established, but was identified and located as the person responsible for the accident around an hour later. The plaintiff settled the other party’s claim and is taking recourse against the defendant in the present action. Due to the further details of the facts of the case and the state of the dispute, pursuant to Section 540 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 1 ZPO, reference is made to the findings in the contested judgment.<\/p>

The local court upheld the claim for payment of \u20ac 1,308.93 plus interest in full. In his appeal, the defendant continues to pursue his motion to dismiss.<\/p>

The admissible appeal is unsuccessful.<\/p>

The plaintiff is entitled to claim compensation from the defendant for the damage it has settled on the basis of \u00a7 426 II 1 BGB.<\/p>

The plaintiff (pursuant to \u00a7 115 VVG) and the defendant (pursuant to \u00a7 7 I StVG) were jointly and severally liable to the third party injured by the accident. The plaintiff settled the damage, which was undisputed at \u20ac 1,308.93. It can demand full recourse in the internal relationship with the defendant in accordance with \u00a7 426 II 1 BGB, as it is exempt from liability in this respect in accordance with \u00a7 28 II, III VVG.<\/p>

It is undisputed that the defendant did not fulfill the obligations imposed on him by No. E.1.3. AKB 2008 to not leave the scene of the accident in the event of a claim. This is to be seen as a breach of obligation in accordance with \u00a7 28 II VVG.<\/p>

<\/p>

The defendant acted intentionally, because the requirement to wait for the police to record the accident on the spot after a traffic accident represents an “elementary, general duty known to every policyholder and driver” even in the case of a clear liability situation (BGH, judgment of December 1, 1999, file no. VI ZR 71\/99, cited from JURIS).<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Whether this breach of the obligation was the cause for the occurrence or the determination of the insured event or for the determination or the scope of the plaintiff’s obligation to pay benefits (\u00a7 28 III 1 VVG) can be left open, since the defendant fraudulently breached the obligation (\u00a7 28 III 2 VVG).<\/p>

In accordance with the wording in No. E.1.3. of the AKB, the defendant is accused of an omission. He refrained from remaining at the scene of the accident (“not leaving the scene of the accident”) in order to enable the necessary findings to be made (“without”). A fraudulent breach of obligation within the meaning of \u00a7 28 III VVG can also be realized by an omission (Schwintowski in Schwintowski\/Br\u00f6mmelmeyer, PK-VersR, \u00a7 28 VVG Rn. 94).<\/p>

Leaving the scene of the accident restricts the insurer’s ability to make findings that could be useful in clarifying the facts of the case or mitigating the damage, and therefore constitutes conduct by the policyholder in breach of contract even if the liability situation is clear (BGH loc. cit.). As a consequence, it is comparable to the concealment of relevant circumstances by the policyholder, as this also makes it difficult or impossible for the insurer to make its own findings. A concealment is already to be classified as “fraudulent” if the policyholder is aware that his conduct could possibly influence the insurer in the settlement of the claim (BGH, judgment of 9.11.1977, ref.: IV ZR 160\/76; judgment of 2.10.1985, ref.: IVa ZR 18\/84, both cited from JURIS). An intention to unjustly enrich oneself is not required (BGH loc. cit.). In this sense, a hit-and-run is also to be classified as fraudulent, as it is potentially capable of adversely affecting the clarification of the facts and the determination of the extent of the insurance company’s liability.<\/p>

The fact that the hit-and-run in the present case had no effect on the determination of the insured event or on the assessment of the extent of the obligation to pay benefits, because the defendant was observed and could be identified as the cause of the accident just one hour after the accident, does not preclude the assumption of fraudulent intent, as this was not foreseeable for the defendant at the time when he breached the obligation. Even if the defendant had the firm intention to actively participate in the investigation after discovering his involvement in the crime, this would not invalidate the accusation of fraudulent intent, because the incalculable mere passage of time was already capable of impairing the interests of the plaintiff. If the repair of the vehicle had already been completed at the time when the defendant could be named as the person responsible for the accident, the plaintiff would not have had the opportunity to inspect the accident vehicle in an unrepaired condition. In the event of a claim settlement through replacement procurement, there was a risk of losing the opportunity to submit a residual value offer.<\/p>

The decision on costs is based on section 97 para. 1 ZPO.<\/p>

The appeal was not permitted as the case is not of fundamental importance and the further development of the law or the safeguarding of uniform case law does not require a decision by the appellate court.<\/p>

Value in dispute: \u20ac 1,308.93<\/p>

(D\u00fcsseldorf Regional Court, judgment of 18.06.2010, ref. 20 S 7\/10)<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Leaving the scene of the accident without allowing his personal details to be ascertained constitutes a breach of obligation in accordance with No. E.1.3. AKB 2008, \u00a7 28 II VVG. For the liability insurer to be released from its obligation to pay benefits, the breach of the obligation must be the cause of the insured […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":1321,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1270","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rechtsanwalt-brandl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1270","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rechtsanwalt-brandl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rechtsanwalt-brandl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rechtsanwalt-brandl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rechtsanwalt-brandl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1270"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/rechtsanwalt-brandl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1270\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1507,"href":"https:\/\/rechtsanwalt-brandl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1270\/revisions\/1507"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rechtsanwalt-brandl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1321"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rechtsanwalt-brandl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1270"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}