Nutzungsausfallentschädigung (loss-of-use compensation): What You're Owed and When It Doesn't Apply
Nutzungsausfallentschädigung (compensation for loss of use) is owed for the time your accident-damaged vehicle is unusable and you don't rent a replacement car, provided no reasonably usable second car is available.
Nutzungsausfallentschädigung (loss-of-use compensation) replaces the pure loss of use itself, not a specifically quantified loss. It starts on the first day the vehicle is unusable and ends once the ability to use it is restored. Commercially used vehicles are covered too, as long as they only support earning income rather than directly generating it themselves.
If you have Kaskoversicherung (comprehensive/collision cover): comprehensive cover generally doesn't include Nutzungsausfallentschädigung at all — it's a damages claim against the other driver and requires proof of their liability, which isn't examined under a pure comprehensive-cover claim. Without a separate add-on module, your own comprehensive insurer pays nothing for it.
How much Nutzungsausfall am I entitled to?
There's no nationwide flat euro amount per day: your independent expert assigns your vehicle to one of eleven groups (A to L) and downgrades it depending on age and mileage. The loss-of-use period covers the necessary repair or Wiederbeschaffungsdauer (replacement-procurement period) plus time for damage assessment and a reasonable period for consideration.
Does the claim lapse if I have a second car?
Only if the second car is genuinely reasonable for you to use. The Bundesgerichtshof ruled in 2025 that in that case there's no perceptible Nutzungsausfall. A vehicle borrowed from a third party, however, does not protect the insurer — that's an important distinction.
To be honest: the Bundesgerichtshof ruled explicitly against the claimant in 2025 where a second car is reasonably usable. Whether that applies to you depends on the individual case — a vehicle that's only occasionally available, or one borrowed from a third party, doesn't count.
Also known as
- Nutzungsausfallentschädigung
- insurance won't pay for not having a car Germany
- compensation for not being able to use my car after accident Germany
- German insurer refused loss of use payment
- daily car unavailability compensation Germany accident
- no rental car compensation instead Germany
- second car loss of use claim denied Germany
The numbers
| Value | Meaning | Source | As of |
|---|---|---|---|
| 130 days | Recognized by the BGH as a compensable loss-of-use period because the claimant had warned the insurer in good time about the impending financial hardship. | BGH VI ZR 112/04 | 25.01.2005 |
| 334 days / 12,692 € | Loss-of-use period and compensation amount awarded after the insurer failed to pay an advance of 1,500 € despite being notified of the claimant's financial hardship. | OLG Düsseldorf I-1 U 14/09 | 17.11.2009 |
| 490 days | The highest documented individual case to date, involving a 17-year-old vehicle with a Wiederbeschaffungswert (replacement value) of 800 €. | AG Bersenbrück 11 C 468/10 | 10.09.2010 |
| 11 groups (A–L), around 38.000 models | The classification system of the Sanden/Danner/Küppersbusch table (the standard reference table used to sort vehicles into loss-of-use compensation groups); recognized by the BGH as a valid estimation method under § 287 ZPO. | BGH VI ZR 357/03 | 23.11.2004 |
No flat euro rate per day. The daily-rate range for the Sanden/Danner/Küppersbusch table that frequently circulates cannot be verified against any freely accessible source with a table edition year, so it doesn't appear on this page. Only the classification system itself is reliable: your independent expert assigns your vehicle to one of the eleven groups and downgrades it depending on age and mileage.
All figures and court decisions above concern German law.
Worked example
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Loss-of-use duration | 334 Tage |
| Total Nutzungsausfallentschädigung awarded | 12,692.00 € |
| Calculated daily rate in this individual case | rund 38.00 € (Fahrzeuggruppe und Marktbasis 2009, heute nicht mehr übertragbar) |
| Reason for the long duration | Versicherer zahlte trotz angezeigter Mittellosigkeit keinen Vorschuss |
Result: The case illustrates the principle: if you warn the insurer clearly and in good time about an impending long loss-of-use period, you don't lose the claim even where the duration is very long. The daily rate itself is an individual 2009 case value, not a current reference figure.
What the insurer typically writes
These are paraphrased summaries of typical settlement-letter reasoning, not verbatim quotes from one specific letter.
The bracketed English text is a translation aid only.
„Für ein gewerblich genutztes Fahrzeug besteht kein Anspruch auf pauschalierten Nutzungsausfall, da es unmittelbar Erträge erwirtschaftet." (English: "For a commercially used vehicle, there is no entitlement to flat-rate Nutzungsausfall, because it directly generates income.")
„Sie hätten das Fahrzeug während der Standzeiten in der Werkstatt abholen und weiternutzen können." (English: "You could have picked up the vehicle during downtime at the repair shop and continued using it.")
„Da Ihnen ein weiteres Fahrzeug im Haushalt zur Verfügung steht, entfällt der Anspruch auf Nutzungsausfall." (English: "Since you have another vehicle available in your household, the claim for Nutzungsausfall does not apply.")
„Die von Ihnen geltend gemachte Ausfalldauer übersteigt die durchschnittliche Reparaturdauer und wird daher gekürzt." (English: "The loss-of-use duration you have claimed exceeds the average repair time and is therefore being reduced.")
How you can respond
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
Sie kürzen die von mir geltend gemachte Nutzungsausfallentschädigung mit dem Hinweis auf … (nennen Sie hier den konkreten Kürzungsgrund, z. B. Zweitwagen, gewerbliche Nutzung oder Ausfalldauer). Die Ausfallzeit umfasst nach ständiger Rechtsprechung die notwendige Reparatur- bzw. Wiederbeschaffungsdauer zuzüglich der Zeit für die Schadensfeststellung und eine angemessene Überlegungszeit (BGH, Urteil vom 05.02.2013, VI ZR 363/11). Ein mir zur Verfügung stehendes weiteres Fahrzeug diente nicht als zumutbarer Ersatz, weil … (Grund benennen, z. B. Nutzung durch einen anderen Haushaltsangehörigen, abweichender Verwendungszweck).
Ich bitte um Nachzahlung des einbehaltenen Betrags bis zum …
English translation (for your understanding only — send the German text above, not this one):
Dear Sir or Madam,You are reducing the Nutzungsausfallentschädigung (loss-of-use compensation) I have claimed, citing … (e.g. second car, commercial use or duration). Under settled case law, the loss-of-use period covers the necessary repair or Wiederbeschaffungsdauer (replacement-procurement period) plus the time needed for damage assessment and a reasonable period for consideration (BGH, judgment of 05.02.2013, VI ZR 363/11). A further vehicle available to me did not serve as a reasonable substitute because … (state reason, e.g. use by another household member, different intended purpose).
I request payment of the withheld amount by …
This reflects German law and German court practice.
Note: this is general guidance on wording, not legal advice for your individual case. Adapt the text to your own situation or seek advice from a lawyer for your specific matter.
What the insurer typically does next
- They pay up. Common when you justify the loss-of-use period in a comprehensible way and credibly rule out a second car.
- They demand proof of an actual intent to use the vehicle (Nutzungswille). For example, through details of your alternative mobility during the loss-of-use period.
- They point to a second car in the household. Then what matters is whether it was genuinely reasonable for you to use — a vehicle borrowed from a third party doesn't count.
- They stick with the reduced number of days. Then it's worth checking the actual repair or Wiederbeschaffungsdauer (replacement-procurement period) stated in the expert report.
Where to find this in the expert report: The relevant vehicle group and the expected repair duration are usually listed under the heading „Nutzungsausfall“ or „Wertermittlung“ (valuation), sometimes as a separate attachment. If it's missing, request a supplementary statement from your independent expert.
On the deadline: The Haftpflichtversicherer (third-party liability insurer) is usually granted a review period of four to six weeks from submission of the complete documents. Set a concrete payment deadline. If the insurer fails to respond, they fall into Verzug (default, § 286 BGB (the German Civil Code)) and owe default interest from that point. Claims arising from a road traffic accident are generally time-barred after three years, running to the end of the year (§ 195, § 199 BGB).
This reflects German law and German court practice.
Case law
| Court | Case number | Date | Key finding | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BGH | VI ZR 363/11 | 05.02.2013 | The loss-of-use period covers the necessary repair or Wiederbeschaffungsdauer (replacement-procurement period) plus damage assessment and a reasonable period for consideration. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=05.02.2013&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+363%2F11 |
| BGH | VI ZR 112/04 | 25.01.2005 | 130 days of loss-of-use compensable where the insurer was warned in good time (not 134 days, as circulated in older overviews). | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=25.01.2005&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+112%2F04 |
| BGH | VI ZR 246/24 | 07.10.2025 | Counter-position. No perceptible Nutzungsausfall where a second car is reasonably usable. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=07.10.2025&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+246%2F24 |
| OLG Brandenburg | 6 U 76/24 | 16.12.2025 | A vehicle borrowed from a third party (neighbor, friend) does not relieve the at-fault party — an important distinction from the second-car ruling. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG+Brandenburg&Datum=16.12.2025&Aktenzeichen=6+U+76%2F24 |
| BGH | VI ZR 25/24 | 08.04.2025 | A legitimate interest in a declaratory finding also exists after fiktive Abrechnung (notional settlement); a later switch to konkrete Abrechnung (actual-cost settlement) with further Nutzungsausfallentschädigung remains possible. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=08.04.2025&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+25%2F24 |
| BGH | VI ZR 35/22 | 11.10.2022 | Against the injured party. No Nutzungsausfall where a reasonable replacement vehicle is available during repair or replacement procurement — in the case decided, a BMW used as a second car alongside the damaged Porsche. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=11.10.2022&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+35%2F22 |
| BGH | VI ZR 569/19 | 17.11.2020 | The injured party does not have to draw on their own comprehensive (Kasko) cover in order to shorten the loss-of-use period. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=17.11.2020&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+569%2F19 |
| BGH | VI ZR 57/17 | 23.01.2018 | Nutzungsausfall also applies to a motorcycle where it is used as an everyday vehicle and not merely for leisure. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=23.01.2018&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+57%2F17 |
| BGH | VI ZR 92/12 | 11.09.2012 | Against the injured party. No Nutzungsausfall for a damaged motorcycle where a car is also available. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=11.09.2012&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+92%2F12 |
| BGH | VI ZA 40/11 | 13.12.2011 | Against the injured party. Senate order on the appointment of an emergency counsel (Notanwalt, § 78b ZPO) which, on the merits, confirms the denial of Nutzungsausfall for a motorcycle used as a hobby vehicle where a car is available. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=13.12.2011&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZA+40%2F11 |
| BGH | VI ZR 211/08 | 10.03.2009 | If the injured party acquires an interim vehicle while waiting for a new vehicle already ordered before the accident, the additional Nutzungsausfall no longer applies for that period. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=10.03.2009&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+211%2F08 |
| LG Regensburg | 61 O 319/25 | 23.12.2025 | The claim requires both intent to use (Nutzungswille) and the ability to use the vehicle; under fiktive Abrechnung, the objectively necessary repair duration is decisive. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=LG+Regensburg&Datum=23.12.2025&Aktenzeichen=61+O+319%2F25 |
| OLG Frankfurt a. M. | 9 U 44/25 | 11.12.2025 (Beschluss) | If the claimant continues to use a vehicle that the expert report says is no longer roadworthy, there is no perceptible loss of use — the claim does not apply. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG+Frankfurt&Datum=11.12.2025&Aktenzeichen=9+U+44%2F25 |
| LG München I | 17 O 27301/13 | 23.01.2015 | A commercially used vehicle that only supports earning income (here: a customer-service van) receives flat-rate Nutzungsausfallentschädigung just as with private use. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=LG+M%C3%BCnchen+I&Datum=23.01.2015&Aktenzeichen=17+O+27301%2F13 |
| AG Bersenbrück | 11 C 468/10 | 10.09.2010 | 490 days of Nutzungsausfall for a 17-year-old vehicle, Wiederbeschaffungswert (replacement value) 800 €, group B with a double downgrade. | IWW-Archiv |
| OLG Düsseldorf | I-1 U 14/09 | 17.11.2009 | 334 days and 12,692 € of Nutzungsausfall awarded; what is documented is an unpaid advance of 1,500 €, not an "outstanding loss of 1,800 €". | ra-frese.de (Kanzleibericht) |
| OLG Frankfurt a. M. | 11 U 7/21 | 21.07.2022 | Against the injured party. No Nutzungsausfall for the damaged Porsche because an available Ford served as a usable second car. A different senate and a different case than the 9 U 44/25 decision of the same court cited above. | https://dejure.org/2022,22965 |
| OLG Düsseldorf | I-1 U 115/18 | 28.05.2019 | Nutzungsausfall is not limited to the pure repair duration; an extended loss-of-use period may also be considered under a notional settlement (fiktive Abrechnung). | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG+D%C3%BCsseldorf&Datum=28.05.2019&Aktenzeichen=1+U+115%2F18 |
| BGH | VI ZR 357/03 | 23.11.2004 | Recognizes the Sanden/Danner(/Küppersbusch) tables as a suitable estimation method for Nutzungsausfall losses under § 287 ZPO. | https://www.captain-huk.de/ |
| OLG Düsseldorf | I-1 W 24/08 | 02.07.2008 | Nutzungsausfall of over 300 days awarded; the amount was calculated beyond the standard period still using the Sanden/Danner/Küppersbusch table — the only publicly verified evidence that courts actually calculate using this table. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG+D%C3%BCsseldorf&Datum=02.07.2008&Aktenzeichen=1+W+24%2F08 |
Frequently asked questions
How much Nutzungsausfall (loss-of-use compensation) am I entitled to per day?
There's no nationwide flat euro amount. The rate depends on the vehicle group your expert determines (eleven groups, A to L) and downgrades for age and mileage. The exact figure is stated in your expert report.
Do I get Nutzungsausfall if I have a second car?
Only if the second car is genuinely reasonable for you to use. The Bundesgerichtshof ruled in 2025 that in that case there's no perceptible Nutzungsausfall. A vehicle borrowed from a third party, however, does not protect the insurer.
The insurer is reducing my Nutzungsausfall duration — what matters?
What matters is the actually necessary repair or Wiederbeschaffungsdauer, plus time for damage assessment and reasonable consideration. If a long loss-of-use period is looming, warn the insurer in writing in good time.
Can I get Nutzungsausfall and a rental car at the same time?
No. The two items are mutually exclusive for the same period — you choose either the rental car or the flat-rate compensation for the lost use.
Do I have to be signed off sick or unable to work to get Nutzungsausfall?
No. Nutzungsausfall is independent of any injury. It compensates solely for the loss of vehicle use, not for personal injury.
Does Nutzungsausfall also apply to motorcycles or motorhomes?
Generally yes, provided there's a perceptible restriction on use. For motorcycles, the season is often taken into account; for motorhomes, the specific usage plans.
Sources
- BGH, Urteil vom 05.02.2013, Az. VI ZR 363/11 — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=05.02.2013&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+363%2F11
- BGH, Urteil vom 25.01.2005, Az. VI ZR 112/04 — Datumsdetails über ra-kotz.de (korrigiert: 130 Tage, nicht 134) — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=25.01.2005&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+112%2F04
- BGH, Urteil vom 07.10.2025, Az. VI ZR 246/24 (NJW 2025, 3579) — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=07.10.2025&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+246%2F24
- OLG Brandenburg, Urteil vom 16.12.2025, Az. 6 U 76/24 — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG+Brandenburg&Datum=16.12.2025&Aktenzeichen=6+U+76%2F24
- BGH, Urteil vom 08.04.2025, Az. VI ZR 25/24 (NJW 2025, 2619) — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=08.04.2025&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+25%2F24
- BGH, Urteil vom 11.10.2022, Az. VI ZR 35/22 — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=11.10.2022&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+35%2F22
- BGH, Urteil vom 17.11.2020, Az. VI ZR 569/19 — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=17.11.2020&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+569%2F19
- BGH, Urteil vom 23.01.2018, Az. VI ZR 57/17 — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=23.01.2018&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+57%2F17
- BGH, Urteil vom 11.09.2012, Az. VI ZR 92/12 — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=11.09.2012&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+92%2F12
- BGH, Beschluss vom 13.12.2011, Az. VI ZA 40/11 (NZV 2012, 223) — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=13.12.2011&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZA+40%2F11
- BGH, Urteil vom 10.03.2009, Az. VI ZR 211/08 (NJW 2009, 1663) — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=10.03.2009&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+211%2F08
- LG Regensburg, Urteil vom 23.12.2025, Az. 61 O 319/25 — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=LG+Regensburg&Datum=23.12.2025&Aktenzeichen=61+O+319%2F25
- OLG Frankfurt a. M., Beschluss vom 11.12.2025, Az. 9 U 44/25 — Besprechung ra-kotz.de — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG+Frankfurt&Datum=11.12.2025&Aktenzeichen=9+U+44%2F25
- LG München I, Urteil vom 23.01.2015, Az. 17 O 27301/13 (Datum korrigiert) — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=LG+M%C3%BCnchen+I&Datum=23.01.2015&Aktenzeichen=17+O+27301%2F13
- AG Bersenbrück, Urteil vom 10.09.2010, Az. 11 C 468/10 — IWW Unfallregulierung effektiv, Archiv
- OLG Düsseldorf, Urteil vom 17.11.2009, Az. I-1 U 14/09 — https://www.ra-frese.de/
- OLG Frankfurt a. M., Urteil vom 21.07.2022, Az. 11 U 7/21 — https://dejure.org/2022,22965
- OLG Düsseldorf, Urteil vom 28.05.2019, Az. I-1 U 115/18 — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG+D%C3%BCsseldorf&Datum=28.05.2019&Aktenzeichen=1+U+115%2F18
- BGH, Urteil vom 23.11.2004, Az. VI ZR 357/03 (Volltextauszug) — https://www.captain-huk.de/
- OLG Düsseldorf, Entscheidung vom 02.07.2008, Az. I-1 W 24/08 — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG+D%C3%BCsseldorf&Datum=02.07.2008&Aktenzeichen=1+W+24%2F08