Verbringungskosten: When the Insurer May Deduct It, and When Not
Verbringungskosten (the cost of transporting your car to an outside paint shop and back) must be reimbursed when that transport would be needed and such a cost is usual in your region.
Does this apply to you? The decisive fork
Before you read on: for your situation, it comes down to whether you had the car repaired.
You had the car repaired and hold an invoice
Then the Verbringungskosten actually arose and your workshop billed them. Your position is clearly stronger than under a notional settlement (fiktive Abrechnung). What a workshop charges for a proper repair must, in principle, be reimbursed by the party at fault — even if individual items later look inflated. This is the so-called Werkstattrisiko (repair-shop risk), and it lies with the party at fault, not with you. You do not have to justify your workshop's pricing.
In this case, use the wording below for a repaired-and-invoiced claim. The wording for a notional settlement would give away your strongest argument.
You are settling on the basis of the report, without repairing
Then it comes down to whether the Verbringungskosten would have arisen from a repair in your region. What matters is regional custom (regionale Üblichkeit), which your report has to establish.
Also note: under a notional settlement, value-added tax is not reimbursed as long as it has not actually been incurred (§ 249 Abs. 2 Satz 2 BGB). That also applies to the VAT portion of the Verbringungskosten. The item itself is unaffected.
Many workshops have no in-house paint booth and pass vehicles on to a paint shop. Transport there and back costs money, and that money shows up as its own line item in the report. The dispute almost always arises under a notional settlement, when you have the damage paid out instead of repairing the car.
The insurer is cutting the Verbringungskosten — is that lawful?
Whether the cut is lawful hinges on a single question: would this cost actually have arisen from a repair in your region? Verbringungskosten must be reimbursed when your car would need to be taken to an outside business for painting and such costs are usual in your region. If your report says so, your chances are good.
Under a notional settlement, the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, Federal Court of Justice) does not require a repair invoice: the objectively necessary amount is established independently of costs actually incurred. Courts decide based on regional custom, not on a nationwide flat rate.
Honesty requires saying: case law is not uniform. The OLG Hamm (Higher Regional Court) has held a deduction for Verbringungskosten lawful because the reasonable referral workshop (Verweisungswerkstatt) did not charge this item. Whether your particular cut can be challenged depends on your report and your region, not on a general principle.
What are Verbringungskosten in the first place?
Verbringungskosten arise when your workshop has no in-house paint shop and has to take your car to an outside business to be painted. Many workshops have no in-house paint booth and therefore pass vehicles on to a paint shop.
Insurers frequently strike this item, especially under a notional settlement, meaning where you have the damage paid out instead of repairing the car. You may also find this item in the report under other names: Verbringung, Verbringekosten, transport costs to the paint shop, or a Verbringungspauschale (flat-rate transport charge).
Also known as
- insurer deducted vehicle transport to paint shop fee
- car insurance cut relocation-to-paint-shop cost Germany
- why did my insurer remove the transport line item
- German car repair transfer cost insurance dispute
- outside paint shop transport fee reimbursement
- Verbringungskosten
The numbers
| Value | Meaning | Source | As of |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 bis 1,5 Stunden | Transport workload that several local courts (Amtsgerichte) regard as reasonable | IWW Unfallregulierung effektiv, summary note on four Amtsgericht decisions | 2026 |
| 10 Prozent | Expert-established regional surcharge recognised by a Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) — for context only, applies to UPE-Aufschläge, not to Verbringungskosten | OLG Schleswig 7 U 40/23 | 29.08.2023 |
| 133 Euro | Verbringungskosten a Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) deducted in one case, because the reasonable referral workshop did not charge them | OLG Hamm I-26 U 72/16 | 28.03.2017 |
| kein bundesweiter Wert | There is no nationwide euro reference value for Verbringungskosten | own review of case law | 28.08.2026 |
Worked example
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Repair cost per report, net | 4,180.00 € |
| of which Verbringungskosten | 138.00 € |
| of which UPE-Aufschlag | 96.00 € |
| Insurer's payment | 3,946.00 € |
Result: 234.00 € shortfall. The insurer struck both items because no repair was carried out. If the report states that workshops in your region have no in-house paint shop and charge for transport, the deduction can be challenged.
What the insurer typically writes
These are paraphrased summaries of typical settlement-letter reasoning, not verbatim quotes from one specific letter.
„Verbringungskosten sind bei fiktiver Abrechnung nicht erstattungsfähig, da sie tatsächlich nicht angefallen sind.“ (English: "Verbringungskosten are not reimbursable under a notional settlement, as they were not actually incurred.")
„Die von uns benannte Referenzwerkstatt verfügt über eine eigene Lackiererei. Verbringungskosten fallen dort nicht an.“ (English: "The reference workshop we named has its own paint shop. Verbringungskosten do not arise there.")
„Der angesetzte Stundensatz für die Verbringung liegt über dem ortsüblichen Niveau. Wir kürzen auf 50.00 € je Stunde.“ (English: "The hourly rate charged for the transport is above the local rate. We are reducing it to €50.00 per hour.")
„Werkstatt und Lackiererei gehören zum selben Unternehmen. Eine Verbringung findet nicht statt.“ (English: "The workshop and the paint shop belong to the same company. No transport takes place.")
How you can respond
You had the car repaired and hold an invoice
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
Sie haben die Verbringungskosten in Höhe von … Euro gekürzt. Die Reparatur ist durchgeführt, die Kosten sind tatsächlich angefallen und mit Rechnung vom … belegt. Die Werkstatt verfügt über keine eigene Lackiererei; der Transport zum Lackierbetrieb war zur fachgerechten Instandsetzung erforderlich.
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 deducted Verbringungskosten in the amount of … euros. The repair has been carried out, the cost was actually incurred, and is evidenced by the invoice of … . The workshop has no in-house paint shop; transporting the vehicle to the paint business was necessary for a proper repair.
Whether individual items on the workshop invoice are later assessed as inflated is not something I bear the risk for. I ask for payment of the outstanding amount by … .
You are settling on the basis of the report, without repairing
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
zu Ihrer Kürzung der Verbringungskosten in Höhe von … Euro weise ich auf Folgendes hin: Maßgeblich ist nicht, ob die Kosten tatsächlich angefallen sind, sondern ob sie bei einer Reparatur in einer markengebundenen Fachwerkstatt in meiner Region angefallen wären. Das Gutachten vom … stellt unter Ziffer … fest, dass die Werkstätten in meinem Umkreis keine eigene Lackiererei unterhalten und Verbringungskosten berechnen.
Ich halte die Position daher aufrecht 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 deduction of Verbringungskosten in the amount of … euros, please note the following: what matters is not whether the cost was actually incurred, but whether it would have arisen from a repair at an authorised brand workshop in my region. The report of … states, under item …, that workshops in my area have no in-house paint shop and charge for Verbringung.
I therefore maintain the item and ask for payment by … .
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
- It pays the balance. Often when the report expressly establishes regional custom.
- It names a specific reference workshop with its own paint shop. Then it comes down to whether that workshop is easily reachable for you and equivalent.
- It commissions an inspection report (Prüfbericht). Such a report is produced without ever seeing your vehicle and does not replace an independent report.
- It sticks to the deduction. Then it concerns an amount that rarely carries a court case on its own — it is often pursued together with other deductions.
If your report does not expressly establish regional custom, this is the point where a supplementary statement from your expert helps. It records which workshops in your area have their own paint shop and what rates they charge. That is an expert finding, not legal advice — and exactly the gap an insurer's inspection report does not close.
On the deadline: a liability insurer (Haftpflichtversicherer) is usually allowed 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, § 286 BGB) and owes default interest from that point. Claims from a road accident generally become time-barred after three years, counted 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VerfGH NRW | VerfGH 104/21.VB-2 | 21.06.2022 | Successful constitutional complaint: the local court (Amtsgericht) had rejected €59.50 in Verbringungskosten without grasping the substance of the claimant's submission — a violation of the right to be heard (rechtliches Gehör). The judgment was set aside on that point and remitted (an order, not a ruling on the merits of the reimbursement question itself). | https://www.verfgh.nrw.de/rechtsprechung/entscheidungen/2022/20220621_104_21_VB-2.pdf |
| BGH | VI ZR 65/18 | 25.09.2018 | Leading decision. Verbringungskosten and UPE-Aufschläge follow the general principles of damages law under a notional settlement. Where a reasonable referral to an equivalent, cheaper workshop that does not charge these items is possible, the claim lapses. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=25.09.2018&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+65%2F18 |
| BGH | VI ZR 300/24 | 28.01.2025 | Under a notional settlement, the objectively necessary amount is established without reference to costs actually incurred. The injured party does not have to submit a repair invoice. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=28.01.2025&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+300%2F24 |
| OLG Celle | 14 U 136/20 | 10.11.2021 | Verbringungskosten are reimbursable even under a notional settlement if, given local circumstances, they would have arisen at an authorised brand workshop. | https://dejure.org/2021,45733 |
| OLG München | 10 U 627/21 | 06.04.2022 | Verbringungskosten are a non-independent line item of the repair cost calculation and must be reimbursed where they typically arose. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG+M%C3%BCnchen&Datum=06.04.2022&Aktenzeichen=10+U+627/21 |
| OLG München | 10 U 3878/13 | 28.02.2014 | Reimbursable under a notional settlement where they are typically charged in the region. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG+M%C3%BCnchen&Datum=28.02.2014&Aktenzeichen=10+U+3878/13 |
| LG Berlin | 46 S 52/22 | 08.02.2023 | Appellate decision on reimbursability under a notional settlement. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=LG+Berlin&Datum=08.02.2023&Aktenzeichen=46+S+52/22 |
| LG Stuttgart | 12 O 230/21 | 28.04.2022 | Verbringungskosten, Schiebekosten (moving/shunting costs) and handling costs were awarded even under a notional settlement of the claim. | https://dejure.org/2022,11787 |
| LG Meiningen | 2 O 302/21 | 29.12.2021 | Verbringungskosten were awarded; a review report (Prüfbericht) commissioned by the insurer does not, without more, undermine the private expert report (Privatgutachten). | https://dejure.org/2021,57395 |
| LG Memmingen | 33 O 1276/17 | 08.01.2019 | Verbringungskosten must be reimbursed even under a notional settlement. | https://dejure.org/2019,6481 |
| OLG Hamm | I-26 U 72/16 | 28.03.2017 | Opposing position. A €133 deduction for Verbringungskosten is justified where the reasonable referral workshop does not charge this item. | https://verkehrslexikon.de/Texte/Rspr8759.php |
| AG Leipzig | 113 C 897/21 | 08.12.2021 | Verbringungskosten remain reimbursable even where the workshop and the paint shop belong to the same group. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=AG+Leipzig&Datum=08.12.2021&Aktenzeichen=113+C+897%2F21 |
| AG Nordenham | 3 C 155/24 | 30.06.2026 | A deduction to a €50 hourly rate is below the regional custom. | IWW Unfallregulierung effektiv 8/2026 |
| AG Hamm | 27 C 64/25 | 09.07.2026 | How the workshop and the paint shop settle internally is an internal matter and irrelevant to the reimbursement claim. | IWW Unfallregulierung effektiv 8/2026 |
Frequently asked questions
What are Verbringungskosten?
The cost of transporting your car from the workshop to a paint shop and back. It arises when the workshop has no in-house paint booth of its own.
Do I get Verbringungskosten even if I do not repair?
Yes, if it would have arisen from a repair in your region. The Bundesgerichtshof does not require a repair invoice. What matters is the regional custom your report establishes.
How high are Verbringungskosten usually?
There is no nationwide benchmark. Several local courts (Amtsgerichte) consider one to one-and-a-half hours of work reasonable. The rates in your region are decisive.
May the insurer refer me to a workshop with its own paint shop?
Under some circumstances, yes. The workshop must be equivalent and easily reachable for you. For young or fully dealer-serviced vehicles, the requirements for such a referral are higher.
What if the workshop and the paint shop belong to the same company?
The internal relationship between the two businesses does not matter for your claim. What counts is that the vehicle has to be moved and that this costs money.
Sources
- VerfGH NRW, Beschluss vom 21.06.2022, Az. VerfGH 104/21.VB-2 — https://www.verfgh.nrw.de/rechtsprechung/entscheidungen/2022/20220621_104_21_VB-2.pdf
- 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 28.01.2025, Az. VI ZR 300/24 (NJW 2025, 1346) — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=28.01.2025&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+300%2F24
- OLG Celle, Urteil vom 10.11.2021, Az. 14 U 136/20 — https://dejure.org/2021,45733
- OLG München, Urteil vom 06.04.2022, Az. 10 U 627/21 (NJW-RR 2022, 1190) — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG+M%C3%BCnchen&Datum=06.04.2022&Aktenzeichen=10+U+627/21
- OLG München, Urteil vom 28.02.2014, Az. 10 U 3878/13 — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG+M%C3%BCnchen&Datum=28.02.2014&Aktenzeichen=10+U+3878/13
- LG Berlin, Urteil vom 08.02.2023, Az. 46 S 52/22 — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=LG+Berlin&Datum=08.02.2023&Aktenzeichen=46+S+52/22
- LG Stuttgart, Urteil vom 28.04.2022, Az. 12 O 230/21 — https://dejure.org/2022,11787
- LG Meiningen, Urteil vom 29.12.2021, Az. 2 O 302/21 — https://dejure.org/2021,57395
- LG Memmingen, Urteil vom 08.01.2019, Az. 33 O 1276/17 — https://dejure.org/2019,6481
- OLG Hamm, Urteil vom 28.03.2017, Az. I-26 U 72/16 — https://verkehrslexikon.de/Texte/Rspr8759.php
- AG Leipzig, Urteil vom 08.12.2021, Az. 113 C 897/21 — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=AG+Leipzig&Datum=08.12.2021&Aktenzeichen=113+C+897%2F21
- AG Nordenham, Urteil vom 30.06.2026, Az. 3 C 155/24 — IWW Unfallregulierung effektiv 8/2026
- AG Hamm, Urteil vom 09.07.2026, Az. 27 C 64/25 — IWW Unfallregulierung effektiv 8/2026