Report requested on Member States' efforts to address unemployment through implemented measures, as directed by the Commission.
The Munich Regional Court (LG) has made a decision (Case No.: 17 S 6937/24) regarding a case involving a fictitious settlement after a traffic accident. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim in its entirety.
The owner of the damaged vehicle, who later became the plaintiff, demanded compensation from the insurer of the party at fault. However, the owner intended to settle the claim fictitiously, i.e., on the basis of the expert report without proof of repair.
Claims settled on the basis of an expert report or a cost estimate in the motor vehicle insurance sector can lead to an entry in the Harmonized Insurance System (HIS) database. The defendant insurer reported this event to the HIS system, stating "fictitious settlement" as the reason.
Later, the plaintiff had the vehicle repaired and submitted a repair confirmation from an expert. However, the repair confirmation for the repair was issued not by the original expert, but by another one. The expert himself stated in the documents that he had inspected the vehicle exclusively visually and without dismantling any components. It was unclear which works had actually been carried out.
The requirements for deletion pursuant to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) were not met. No proof of the installation of original replacement parts was provided. The amount of repair costs was determined by an expert appointed by the owner, resulting in a sum of 6,717 euros.
The court found that there was no comparison with the repair procedure of the expert report. The repair carried out had not been proven to be complete and proper. If further damage occurs to the same vehicle later on, this can result in a more detailed claim examination to prevent previously settled claims from being submitted again.
It is important to note that a HIS entry can remain even if the repair is proven, if it is unclear whether the damage has been completely and properly repaired, or if a repaired vehicle has suffered significant value loss. A person who has settled a claim fictitiously cannot demand the deletion of these data if they cannot provide evidence of a complete and proper repair.
The images included in the repair confirmation showed the vehicle only from a distance. Despite these findings, the plaintiff argued that the deletion of the HIS entry was necessary to protect their privacy rights under the GDPR. However, the court dismissed this argument, as the conditions for deletion were not met.
In conclusion, the Munich Regional Court's decision serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and accuracy in the insurance claims process. Fictitious settlements can lead to entries in the HIS database, which can have long-term consequences for the owner of the vehicle. It is crucial to ensure that repairs are properly documented and that original replacement parts are used to maintain the integrity of the system and prevent insurance fraud.
