Member States' unemployment countermeasures examination requested from the Commission, report on implementation pending
In a recent ruling by the Munich Regional Court (LG), the court upheld the validity of the Hazard Information and Insurance System (HIS) in a case involving a fictitious car repair claim. The case, numbered 17 S 6937/24, garnered attention from the German Bar Association (DAV).
The dispute began when the owner of a damaged car, seeking compensation from the insurer of the party at fault, settled the claim based on an expert's report without proof of repair. The defendant insurer, suspecting fraud, reported this event to the HIS system, stating "fictitious settlement" as the reason.
The expert himself had inspected the vehicle only visually and without dismantling any components. The repair carried out had not been proven to be complete and proper, and it was not clear which works had actually been carried out during the repair. The images included in the repair confirmation showed the vehicle only from a distance.
The Munich Regional Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim in its entirety. The court negatively evaluated the fact that the confirmation did not provide a comparison with the repair path described in the expert report. The conditions for deletion according to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) were not met in this case.
Even if a repair is proven, a HIS entry can still remain if it is unclear whether the damage has been completely and properly repaired, or if a repaired vehicle has suffered significant value loss. The HIS system is intended to help prevent insurance fraud, and a claim can be entered into the system under certain circumstances, such as unusual claim frequencies or other peculiarities.
Later, the plaintiff had the car repaired and submitted a repair confirmation from an expert. However, this did not lead to the deletion of the data from the HIS system. The court ruled that someone who has settled a claim fictitiously cannot demand the deletion of these data from the HIS system.
In a separate case, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) requested the deletion of a HIS entry, but the request was rejected because the court found no legal basis for the deletion. The entry did not violate any rights or laws.
This ruling serves as a reminder to car owners to ensure that repairs are properly documented and proven before settling claims, to avoid any potential issues with the HIS system. It also highlights the importance of the HIS system in preventing insurance fraud.
