BGH ruling: Insurance does not have to reimburse more expensive Tesla

Verdict

The insurance doesn’t pay for this car

After an accident that resulted in a total loss, the accident victim bought a more expensive model. But the man himself has to pay for the additional costs, the Federal Court of Justice has now ruled.

After an accident with a total loss, the accident victim cannot simply demand the costs of a more expensive vehicle from the opposing insurer – even if their previous model is not available for a long time. Now he has that Federal Court of Justice (Az: VI ZR 47/26) decided in a current judgment, which “Beck aktuell” reports on.

In this specific case it was about a man who was driving his brand new car Tesla Model Y Long Range got into an accident just a few days after delivery. The result: total loss, a new car was needed. Two days later, the man bought a Tesla Model Y Performance. This higher horsepower version costs almost 9,000 euros more in stores.

The other party’s liability insurance did not want to pay this difference – it simply reimbursed the purchase price that the man had paid for his vehicle that was involved in the accident.

The Federal Court of Justice, like the lower courts, rightly found. As the owner of a significantly damaged new car with a maximum mileage of 1,000 kilometers, the man could in principle demand a new car as a replacement. However, this must be an economically equivalent replacement vehicle. However, this is not the case with the purchase price of the new Tesla being around 15 percent higher.

The man argued that the original model was not available. He would probably have had to wait three to four months for this, but the alternative model was available immediately. Since he was generally entitled to rental car costs, the cost of an interim vehicle or loss of use compensation for the waiting time, the insurance company actually saved money by changing his vehicle, the man argued.

But this argument did not work in court. Because the damage settlement is only about the measures actually taken. Fictitious bridging costs, however, should not be taken into account. According to the court, the man’s behavior could actually have made economic sense for the insurance company. However, only the insurance company decides whether to engage in this form of damage settlement – and not the accident victim. This now has to pay the difference of 9,000 euros out of its own pocket.