No Porsche, No Tears: Top Exec Loses Compensation Bid

Germany's highest court has ruled that a company director is not entitled to compensation for the loss of "driving pleasure" after his Porsche was totaled in an accident, provided a reasonable replacement vehicle is available. The court found that a Citroën DS3 Cross was a suitable replacement, denying the executive's claim for approximately 4,000 euros.

Key Points

The case involved a managing director seeking compensation after his Porsche 911, a company car also used privately, was written off in an accident.
The director argued that the provided replacement vehicle, a Citroën, was inadequate due to the prestige and driving experience associated with a Porsche.
The court rejected the claim, stating that the availability of a reasonable replacement vehicle negated any "perceptible loss of use."
The court acknowledged that the Porsche may have enhanced the director's quality of life but stated that this was not grounds for financial compensation.
The director's company had already received compensation for the rental costs of the Citroën.
The legal concept at play was "usage loss compensation," intended to cover the inability to use a vehicle needed for daily life.

Background

The plaintiff, a managing director, had the privilege of using a Porsche 911 as a company car, which included private use. Following an accident where the Porsche was deemed a total loss, the company provided a Citroën DS3 Cross as a temporary replacement. The director felt the Citroën was an unsuitable substitute, arguing it lacked the prestige and driving experience of a Porsche, resulting in a diminished quality of life. He sought financial compensation from the other driver's insurance for this perceived loss, invoking the principle of "usage loss compensation." This type of compensation is designed to cover instances where a person is unable to use their vehicle due to damage or repair, provided they need a vehicle for their daily activities. However, it is usually not applicable if a suitable replacement vehicle is available.

Numbers & Facts

Plaintiff: Managing director of an unnamed company.
Vehicle in question: Porsche 911 (company car with private use).
Replacement vehicle: Citroën DS3 Cross.
Compensation sought: Approximately 4,000 euros.
Court: German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof - BGH).
Case number: VI ZR 246/24.
Rental costs of the Citroën already compensated: almost 300 euros.
Date of Decision: October 17, 2025

Assessment

The ruling sets a precedent that limits claims for "usage loss compensation" to tangible losses, such as transportation costs, rather than subjective feelings like the loss of "driving pleasure" or prestige. It reinforces the principle that a reasonable replacement vehicle negates the basis for such claims, even if the replacement is not equivalent in status or luxury to the original vehicle. This decision primarily affects individuals and companies seeking compensation for vehicle damage, particularly in cases involving high-end vehicles. Insurance companies will likely welcome the ruling as it limits their exposure to potentially inflated claims based on subjective perceptions of loss. For the managing director in this specific instance, the ruling means he will not receive the additional compensation he sought, having to settle for the temporary use of a less prestigious vehicle.

Outlook

The BGH's decision clarifies the scope of "usage loss compensation" in Germany, setting a clear legal standard for future cases. It is unlikely that this specific issue will be revisited by the court soon, unless significantly different circumstances arise. Lower courts are now bound to follow this precedent, potentially leading to a decrease in similar claims and increased clarity in insurance settlements. The case highlights the importance of understanding the legal parameters of compensation claims and the limitations of seeking damages for subjective losses.

Source: https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/verbraucher/kein-anspruch-porsche-bgh-100.html