Stundenverrechnungssätze (hourly labor rates) and Werkstattverweis (workshop referral to a cheaper shop): When You Must Use an Independent Shop
A Werkstattverweis (referral to an independent repair shop) is only lawful if that shop is technically equivalent, easily reachable for you, and your vehicle isn't protected by its age or service history.
Does This Apply to You? The Decisive Fork
Before you read on: for your situation, it matters whether you've had the car repaired.
You Had the Repair Done and Have an Invoice
The Stundenverrechnungssätze (hourly labor rates) have then actually been billed and are documented by an invoice. Whether you had the repair carried out at the markengebundene Fachwerkstatt (authorized brand-name repair shop) or at an independent shop no longer plays a decisive role for your claim under current case law — what matters is the time of the accident, not your later conduct (BGH VI ZR 405/24 of 24.03.2026; BGH VI ZR 100/25 of 31.03.2026). What your shop has invoiced must in principle be reimbursed by the party at fault; the Werkstattrisiko (workshop risk — the risk that individual invoice items later turn out to be inflated) lies with them, even if the invoice has not yet been paid (BGH VI ZR 38/22 of 16.01.2024).
In this case, use the wording aid for the konkrete Abrechnung (actual settlement, based on the real repair invoice) further below.
You're Settling Based on the Damage Report, Without Repairing
Then it depends on whether the insurer can effectively refer you to an equivalent, reasonable, and cheaper shop — a Werkstattverweis (workshop referral). If it fails to do so, the Stundenverrechnungssätze of your markengebundene Fachwerkstatt remain decisive.
Also note: under a fiktive Abrechnung (notional settlement — settling based on the estimate without actually repairing the vehicle), sales tax is not reimbursed unless it has actually been incurred (§ 249 Abs. 2 Satz 2 BGB).
Kaskoversicherung (comprehensive/collision cover): under your Kaskoversicherung, your policy may provide for its own shop tie-in or reduced Stundenverrechnungssätze (AKB — the German motor insurance policy conditions). That is a contractual question under your Kasko policy and is independent of the referral case law, which applies to the at-fault party's liability insurer.
Damage assessors regularly calculate repair costs based on the local markengebundene Fachwerkstatt (authorized brand-name repair shop), because that most reliably reflects the costs typically incurred. Insurers instead often want to refer you to a cheaper independent shop to reduce repair costs — a Werkstattverweis (workshop referral). That is only lawful if the insurer specifically proves both the technical equivalence and the reasonableness of this alternative.
Do I Have to Pay If the Shop's Invoice Is Higher Than the Damage Report?
Generally not. If you have the repair carried out to the extent the assessor considered necessary, the shop bears the so-called Werkstattrisiko (workshop risk): what a shop charges for a proper repair must in principle be reimbursed by the party at fault, even if individual line items later appear inflated (BGH, judgment of 16.01.2024, VI ZR 38/22). You don't have to justify your shop's calculation. Exception: this protection does not apply where you knowingly collude with the shop or where the overcharge is obvious to you.
To be fair: the case law on the injured party's own shop (BGH VI ZR 274/22) shows that referrals can, in individual cases, also work against the injured party — capacity utilization and reasonableness are decisive. A referral is therefore not unlawful per se, but tied to clear requirements that must be examined in a dispute.
Also known as
- Werkstattverweis
- insurer referred me to a cheaper repair shop
- insurance company forcing me to use a non-dealer shop
- workshop referral car insurance Germany
- insurer cut hourly labor rate to independent garage
- does my car insurance have to pay dealer shop rates
The numbers
| Value | Meaning | Source | As of |
|---|---|---|---|
| three years | vehicle age up to which a referral to an independent shop is generally unreasonable | BGH VI ZR 405/24, Rn. 11 | 24.03.2026 |
| four to six weeks | review period usually granted to a liability insurer from submission of the complete documents | own review of practice | 28.08.2026 |
| no nationwide rate comparison | there is no single nationwide euro benchmark for "authorized shop versus independent shop" — rates are regional and brand-dependent | own review of case law | 28.08.2026 |
Worked example
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Repair costs per damage report (authorized shop), net | 5,240.00 € |
| Repair costs after referral to independent shop, net | 4,310.00 € |
| Insurer's payment | 4,310.00 € |
Result: 930.00 € difference. The vehicle is two years old. Under current case law, a referral to a non-brand shop is generally unreasonable for such a young vehicle — the deduction is contestable in this example, regardless of how equivalent the named shop is otherwise.
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.
„Wir verweisen Sie auf die Firma … Diese Werkstatt ist technisch gleichwertig und für Sie mühelos erreichbar. Wir erstatten nur deren Stundenverrechnungssätze.“ (English: "We are referring you to the company … This shop is technically equivalent and easily reachable for you. We will only reimburse its hourly labor rates.")
„Sie haben Ihr Fahrzeug tatsächlich in einer freien Werkstatt reparieren lassen. Damit zeigen Sie, dass Ihnen an der Markenwerkstatt nicht gelegen ist.“ (English: "You actually had your vehicle repaired at an independent shop. This shows that the authorized dealer shop was not important to you.")
„Unser Prüfbericht kommt zu niedrigeren ortsüblichen Stundenverrechnungssätzen. Wir kürzen auf diesen Wert.“ (English: "Our assessment report arrives at lower local hourly labor rates. We are reducing payment to that amount.")
„Ihr Fahrzeug ist älter als drei Jahre. Ein Verweis auf eine freie Werkstatt ist daher grundsätzlich zulässig.“ (English: "Your vehicle is older than three years. A referral to an independent shop is therefore generally permissible.")
How you can respond
You Had the Repair Done and Have an Invoice
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
Sie haben die Stundenverrechnungssätze auf das Niveau der von Ihnen benannten Werkstatt gekürzt. Die Reparatur ist durchgeführt und mit Rechnung vom … belegt. Nach der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs kommt es für die Zumutbarkeit einer Verweisung auf den Zeitpunkt des Unfalls an, nicht auf mein späteres Verhalten (BGH, Urteil vom 24.03.2026, VI ZR 405/24). Ob einzelne Positionen der Werkstattrechnung im Nachhinein als überhöht bewertet werden, geht nicht zu meinen Lasten. Ich bitte um Ausgleich des offenen Betrages bis zum …
English translation (for your understanding only — send the German text above, not this one):
Dear Sir or Madam,
You have reduced the Stundenverrechnungssätze (hourly labor rates) to the level of the shop you named. The repair has been carried out and is documented by an invoice dated … . Under the case law of the Bundesgerichtshof, the reasonableness of a referral is judged as of the time of the accident, not by my later conduct (BGH, judgment of 24.03.2026, VI ZR 405/24). Whether individual items on the shop's invoice are later assessed as inflated does not fall to my detriment. I ask that you settle the outstanding amount by … .
You're Settling Based on the Damage Report, Without Repairing
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
zu Ihrem Verweis auf die von Ihnen benannte Werkstatt weise ich auf Folgendes hin: Ein Verweis ist nur zulässig, wenn die Werkstatt technisch gleichwertig, für mich mühelos erreichbar und zumutbar ist. Mein Fahrzeug war zum Unfallzeitpunkt … Jahre alt bzw. lückenlos markengebunden gewartet, wie das beigefügte Scheckheft zeigt. Ich halte daher an den Stundenverrechnungssätzen meiner Markenwerkstatt gemäß Gutachten vom … fest und bitte um Ausgleich bis zum …
English translation (for your understanding only — send the German text above, not this one):
Dear Sir or Madam,
Regarding your referral to the shop you named, I would point out the following: a referral is only permissible if the shop is technically equivalent, easily reachable for me, and reasonable. At the time of the accident, my vehicle was … years old and/or had been serviced without a gap at an authorized shop, as shown by the enclosed service booklet. I am therefore maintaining the Stundenverrechnungssätze of my authorized shop per the damage report dated … and ask that you settle by … .
The Insurer Named a Specific Shop — Here's How to Check It
A referral to a particular shop is not a mere formality. Use these criteria to check whether the named shop is even reasonable for you:
- Distance and accessibility from your home. A significantly longer route than to your previous shop weighs against reasonableness.
- Is the shop bound to quality standards, for example through certification or membership in a shop network?
- Does the manufacturer's warranty or guarantee remain intact if you have the repair done there?
- Is there a pickup-and-delivery service, and who bears its cost? If there isn't one, you incur extra effort that the insurer must factor in.
- Your vehicle's age and unbroken Scheckheftpflege (dealer service booklet maintenance) at an authorized shop. Both weigh against the reasonableness of a referral — for a vehicle under three years old, a referral is generally excluded anyway (BGH VI ZR 405/24, Rn. 11), and a purely cosmetic, unrepaired prior damage changes nothing as long as the service-booklet history is unbroken.
- Was the shop specifically named before the repair, or only afterward in the deduction letter? A mere Prüfbericht (assessment report) without a recognizable expert author does not suffice as a basis for a referral.
If the named shop fails any of these points, you can respond:
Die von Ihnen benannte Werkstatt ist mangels … nicht ohne Weiteres gleichwertig und zumutbar erreichbar. Ich halte an der Kalkulation meines Gutachtens fest, die auf den Stundenverrechnungssätzen meiner bisherigen Werkstatt beruht.
English translation (for your understanding only — send the German text above, not this one):
The shop you named is not, for lack of …, readily equivalent and reasonably accessible. I am maintaining the calculation in my damage report, which is based on the Stundenverrechnungssätze of my previous shop.
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
- He pays the difference. Often when the vehicle's age or service history rules out a referral.
- He specifies his shop referral in more detail. Then what matters is the distance, quality tie-in, and warranty preservation of the named shop.
- He refers again to his Prüfbericht (assessment report). A Prüfbericht without a recognizable expert author does not suffice as a basis for a referral under case law.
- He maintains the deduction. Then it usually involves several hundred euros, often asserted together with other deduction items.
If your damage report does not expressly assess the equivalence of the named shop, a supplementary statement from your assessor helps. It can assess the technical equipment, certification, and accessibility of the named shop — an expert finding, not the other side's Prüfbericht (assessment report).
On the deadline: a liability insurer is usually granted a review period of four to six weeks from submission of the complete documents. Set a specific payment deadline in your letter. If the insurer does not respond, it falls into default (Verzug under § 286 BGB) and owes default interest from that point. Claims arising from a traffic accident are generally time-barred after three years, counted to the end of the year (§ 195, § 199 BGB).
Where does this appear in the damage report? The Stundenverrechnungssätze usually appear at the beginning of the calculation under „Kalkulationsgrundlage“ (calculation basis) or „Stundenverrechnungssätze der Referenzwerkstatt“ (hourly labor rates of the reference shop), with the name, address, and a note on whether the shop is brand-authorized. If an assessment of the named alternative shop is missing, request a supplementary statement.
This reflects German law and German court practice.
Case law
| Court | Case number | Date | Key finding | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BGH | VI ZR 405/24 | 24.03.2026 | Official headnote: reliance on the unreasonableness of the independent brand-name workshop named by the party at fault does not lapse, under a notional settlement, merely because the injured party later actually has the vehicle repaired there. The time of the accident is decisive. Rn. 11: a repair at an independent shop is generally unreasonable if the vehicle was not older than three years at the time of the accident, or if the injured party proves through a service booklet, invoices, or service appointments that the vehicle was always serviced and repaired at an authorized shop. | https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de |
| BGH | VI ZR 100/25 | 31.03.2026 | For the notional settlement of property damage, what subsequently happens to the damaged item generally plays no role. | https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de |
| BGH | VI ZR 38/22 | 16.01.2024 | Workshop risk (Werkstattrisiko): the injured party may rely on it even where the shop's invoice has not yet been paid; payment is then made step by step against assignment of the claims against the shop. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=16.01.2024&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+38%2F22 |
| BGH | VI ZR 274/22 | 26.05.2023 | Under a notional settlement, an injured party may exceptionally also be referred to their own shop if it is not fully utilized and using the idle capacity is reasonable for them; the claim then generally still includes the contractor's profit margin. | https://www.openjur.de |
| BGH | VI ZR 53/09 | 20.10.2009 | "VW Golf judgment." The injured party may base a notional settlement on the usual hourly labor rates of the authorized brand-name shop as regionally determined by an assessor; a referral is only possible where equivalence and reasonableness are proven. The case decided concerned a 9½-year-old VW Golf, not a young vehicle. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=20.10.2009&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+53%2F09 |
| BGH | VI ZR 91/09 | 23.02.2010 | A service booklet, invoice, or maintenance history can serve as proof of consistently brand-authorized servicing, which preserves protection against a referral even for older vehicles. | https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de |
| BGH | VI ZR 65/18 | 25.09.2018 | Foundational referral doctrine: where a reasonable referral to an equivalent, cheaper shop is possible, the claim to the higher rates of the authorized shop lapses to that extent. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=25.09.2018&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+65%2F18 |
| BGH | VI ZR 302/08 | 22.06.2010 | The notional settlement may be based on the hourly rates of an authorized brand-name shop. A referral to an independent shop requires proof of equivalence; the vehicle's age alone is not sufficient for that. | https://openjur.de/u/68616.html |
| BGH | VI ZR 320/12 | 14.05.2013 | Opposing position. The party at fault may refer the injured party to a cheaper, equivalent repair option even during ongoing litigation, provided no rules on late submissions stand in the way. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=14.05.2013&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+320%2F12 |
| OLG Schleswig | 7 U 87/25 | 28.11.2025 | Restates the requirements for a referral — equivalence and easy accessibility — citing BGH VI ZR 65/18. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG+Schleswig&Datum=28.11.2025&Aktenzeichen=7+U+87%2F25 |
| OLG München | 10 U 5397/21 e | 21.09.2022 | A referral to a cheaper reference shop is reasonable if it is easily accessible; a distance of around 20 kilometers serves as a benchmark. | https://dejure.org/2022,26443 |
| LG Memmingen | 32 O 1176/17 | 18.07.2018 | A blanket denial of the hourly labor rates applied by the appraiser is not procedurally sufficient. | https://dejure.org/2018,22337 |
| LG Saarbrücken | 13 S 38/23 | 14.03.2024 | The injured party is master of the restitution process; the workshop risk (Werkstattrisiko) lies with the party at fault, even where the invoice is still unpaid. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=LG+Saarbr%C3%BCcken&Datum=14.03.2024&Aktenzeichen=13+S+38%2F23 |
| LG Duisburg | 11 S 28/24 | 16.01.2025 | Repair costs remain reimbursable even where uneconomical if the injured party chose a competent shop without any fault of their own. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=LG+Duisburg&Datum=16.01.2025&Aktenzeichen=11+S+28%2F24 |
| AG München | 332 C 26626/12 | 06.12.2012 | For vehicles under three years old, the authorized brand-name shop is the reference shop; a referral to a non-brand shop is excluded. | IWW Unfallregulierung effektiv, Fachbeitrag „UPE-Aufschlag fiktiv bei jungem Fahrzeug“ |
Frequently asked questions
My insurer is referring me to a cheaper independent shop — a Werkstattverweis. Do I have to go there?
Only if the shop is technically equivalent and easily reachable for you. For vehicles under three years old or with unbroken authorized-shop service history, such a referral is usually unlawful.
What is the insurer's Prüfbericht, and how reliable is it?
A Prüfbericht (assessment report) evaluates repair costs without inspecting your vehicle. If it doesn't identify a qualified expert author, case law says it doesn't suffice as a basis for a referral.
Do I have to pay if the shop's invoice is higher than the damage report?
Generally not. If you have the repair carried out to the extent the report specifies, the shop bears the Werkstattrisiko (workshop risk), not you — unless you knowingly help inflate the invoice.
What happens if I repair at my authorized shop despite the referral?
That doesn't harm your claim to the fiktive (notional) authorized-shop rates. What matters is the time of the accident, not what you later do with the money.
Does the Werkstattverweis also apply to an older vehicle with prior damage?
A purely cosmetic, unrepaired prior damage changes nothing, as long as the Scheckheftpflege (service booklet maintenance) was unbroken at an authorized shop. Protection from the referral then still applies.
Can the insurer refer me to my own repair shop?
Exceptionally, yes — if you run a shop yourself, it isn't fully utilized, and using it is reasonable for you; the claim then generally still includes the contractor's profit margin.
Sources
- BGH, Urteil vom 24.03.2026, Az. VI ZR 405/24 (ECLI:DE:BGH:2026:240326UVIZR405.24.0) — https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de
- BGH, Urteil vom 31.03.2026, Az. VI ZR 100/25 (ECLI:DE:BGH:2026:310326UVIZR100.25.0) — https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de
- BGH, Urteil vom 16.01.2024, Az. VI ZR 38/22 (DAR 2024, 253; VersR 2024, 445) — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=16.01.2024&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+38%2F22
- BGH, Urteil vom 25.09.2018, Az. VI ZR 65/18 (NJW 2019, 852) — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=25.09.2018&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+65%2F18
- BGH, Urteil vom 26.05.2023, Az. VI ZR 274/22 — https://www.openjur.de
- BGH, Urteil vom 20.10.2009, Az. VI ZR 53/09 (BGHZ 183, 21; NJW 2010, 606) — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=20.10.2009&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+53%2F09
- BGH, Urteil vom 23.02.2010, Az. VI ZR 91/09 — zitiert in BGH VI ZR 405/24, Rn. 11 (VersR 2010, 923) — https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de
- BGH, Urteil vom 22.06.2010, Az. VI ZR 302/08 (Volltext openjur.de) — https://openjur.de/u/68616.html
- BGH, Urteil vom 14.05.2013, Az. VI ZR 320/12 — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=14.05.2013&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+320%2F12
- OLG Schleswig, Urteil vom 28.11.2025, Az. 7 U 87/25 — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG+Schleswig&Datum=28.11.2025&Aktenzeichen=7+U+87%2F25
- OLG München, Urteil vom 21.09.2022, Az. 10 U 5397/21 e — https://dejure.org/2022,26443
- LG Memmingen, Urteil vom 18.07.2018, Az. 32 O 1176/17 — https://dejure.org/2018,22337
- LG Saarbrücken, Urteil vom 14.03.2024, Az. 13 S 38/23 — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=LG+Saarbr%C3%BCcken&Datum=14.03.2024&Aktenzeichen=13+S+38%2F23
- LG Duisburg, Urteil vom 16.01.2025, Az. 11 S 28/24 — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=LG+Duisburg&Datum=16.01.2025&Aktenzeichen=11+S+28%2F24
- AG München, Urteil vom 06.12.2012, Az. 332 C 26626/12 — IWW Unfallregulierung effektiv, Fachbeitrag „UPE-Aufschlag fiktiv bei jungem Fahrzeug“