Prior damage is earlier damage that was already professionally repaired before the current accident. Old damage is earlier damage that is still unrepaired on the car on the day of the accident.
This difference is not a minor detail. In practice, it decides whether the other party's insurer pays the repair costs in full or reduces the payment (Kürzung) because of alleged old damage.
The repair status on the day of the inspection. With prior damage, a repair shop has already professionally removed the earlier damage. Technically, nothing can be found on the part anymore. With old damage, the earlier damage is still open. It was never repaired, or not completely.
This one difference leads to two very different treatments in the damage report (Schadengutachten). Prior damage does not matter for the repair costs of the current accident, because it was already removed before the new damage happened. At most, it affects the diminished value (Wertminderung), because the market applies an extra discount to a car that was repaired several times. Old damage, however, is not paid for by the party who caused the current accident. Say the door already had a dent before the rear-end collision. Then the person whose car was damaged cannot demand a new door at the cost of the other party's liability insurance. That part of the damage was not caused by the current accident.
A third, related term is subsequent damage (Nachschaden). This is damage that happens after the current accident but before the inspection. It usually comes from a second, separate event with a different party at fault. The same logic applies as for old damage. If the expert sees during the inspection that this event was separate and happened later, it is treated apart from the current case.
For the question of who pays, this difference is not a formality. It is the core of claim settlement (Regulierung). The other party's liability insurance owes only compensation for the damage caused by the specific accident. Everything that was already there and stayed unrepaired is left out of the calculation, no matter how small or large that earlier part is. Reductions start exactly at this border. So it is useful to separate the damage clearly at the inspection and not only later in a dispute.
The main burden of proof lies with the person whose car was damaged, at every stage. You must explain and prove that the claimed damage comes from the current event and not from an earlier one. If the insurer refers to prior damage, it does not have to provide its own proof. It is enough to show clear signs of earlier damage, for example documented earlier damage on the same part. From this point, you must prove the professional repair of the prior damage if you want the current damage paid in full. The insurer has to meet a much lower standard than you. This is why insurers often use prior damage to reduce the payment in claim settlement.
The strict full proof under § 286 ZPO (German Code of Civil Procedure) does not apply to this proof of repair. The eased standard of § 287 ZPO applies instead: it is enough that the repair was more likely than not. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has made clear that the requirements for explaining the facts must not be set too high. Details are in the section on court decisions further below.
In practice this means: a repair invoice is the best proof, but not the only one. If the invoice is missing, you can also make the professional repair credible in other ways. Examples are a confirmation from the repair shop or witnesses who know the repaired condition. The expert can also support this with technical findings on the car.
This is the most difficult case in practice, because old and new damage can overlap on the same part. The expert must then separate the zones exactly: which area of the damage technically comes from the current event, and which from the earlier one. The expert uses the impact geometry and the force path in the sheet metal. If available, the expert also compares photos or invoices from the earlier repair.
Calculation example
A Mercedes-Benz C-Class is hit again at the front left while leaving a parking space. The repair cost calculation for the bumper and the left headlight is €4,120.30. Twenty months earlier, the same front of the car was already damaged in a parking accident. A specialist repair shop repaired it for €1,890. The invoice is available.
The paint thickness measurement on the bumper shows an even paint layer of about 260 micrometers. This matches the primer, base coat and clear coat of a repaint. The undamaged right part of the bumper measures only about 110 micrometers. This is the typical factory layer. There is no sign that parts of the old damage were repaired badly or left behind.
Result: The prior damage counts as fully and professionally removed. On the right rear fender there is also an old scratch that was never repaired. It is clearly separate in space from the current front damage. This old damage is not considered in the current claim settlement. The report only notes it for information. The full calculation of €4,120.30 is submitted to the other party's liability insurance.
A related special case concerns a part that is damaged twice in a row by different events. For example, your own vehicle insurance (Kaskoversicherung) has already settled the second damage. That later payment comes from a different insurance relationship. It does not change the claim from the first event. The injured person received a payment from their own vehicle insurance for a different event. They paid for this insurance themselves. The party who caused the first damage cannot deduct this payment. The claim from the first event remains. It is the claim to the calculated repair costs without a repair (fictitious settlement, fiktive Abrechnung).
With a combination of visual check, documents and measuring technology. The visual check shows whether gap sizes, paint flow and part alignment look consistent overall. If an invoice or a confirmation from the repair shop is available, the expert compares the repair scope described there with the current condition.
Where documents are missing or the information is unclear, measuring technology helps. The paint thickness measurement shows whether several paint layers lie on top of each other on a surface. A clearly higher value than on an undamaged comparison surface on the same car points to a repair that already took place. On structural sheet metal parts, an eddy current or magnetic induction measurement adds to the result, because it also reacts to body filler under the paint. None of these methods replaces the repair invoice as proof. Together, however, they give a reliable technical picture when documents are missing.
All measured values and findings belong in the report with photo documentation. They need more than a number: they need a reference to the measuring point and the comparison surface. Only then can the other party's insurer, a review company that the insurer hires later, or a court in a dispute understand the finding. They can do this without inspecting the car again.
Three decisions of the Federal Court of Justice are relevant for the question of proof in prior damage cases. They are shown here as general information, not as our own legal assessment.
In its decision of October 15, 2019 (VI ZR 377/18), the Federal Court of Justice had to rule on a used car destroyed by a vehicle fire. The liability insurer referred to a documented, allegedly unrepaired prior damage. The court confirmed that § 287 ZPO eases not only the proof itself but also the explanation of the facts. It also confirmed that a person who knew nothing about a prior damage may prove the presumed professional repair with witnesses. The court of appeal had wrongly refused to hear the witnesses. The Federal Court of Justice reversed the decision in favor of the injured person and sent the case back to the lower court.
In its decision of July 30, 2024 (VI ZR 122/23), the Federal Court of Justice clarified this line in a case with disputed prior damage. To substantiate a claim, the injured person does not have to present a private expert report from before the lawsuit. The person also does not have to adjust an existing report after the court has taken evidence. The lower court had set the requirements for explaining the facts too high. Because of this, the decision was reversed in favor of the injured person and sent back to the higher regional court (Oberlandesgericht) in Frankfurt am Main.
In its judgment of March 12, 2009 (VII ZR 88/08), the Federal Court of Justice decided a related special case. The case did not come from traffic accident law but from contract law for work and repair services. The bumper of a car was first damaged in a car wash. The injured person settled this damage as a fictitious settlement. Later, the same part was completely destroyed in a rear-end collision and settled through the person's own vehicle insurance. The party who caused the first damage argued that the claim had become void. The Federal Court of Justice decided in favor of the injured person. The injured person got a payment from their own vehicle insurance, which they paid for themselves, for a different event. This payment does not help the party who caused the first damage. The original claim remains.
Legal information, not legal advice for your individual case. Your traffic law lawyer handles the legal assessment and the communication with the other party's insurer. CleverCrash prepares the technical damage documentation on which this assessment is based. We also support the technical review of a reduction if the insurer reduces the payment because of exactly this point.
These are two different questions that are easily mixed up. This page explains what separates a repaired prior damage from an unrepaired old damage, legally and technically, and how this affects payment in the current claim. Whether a prior damage also triggers a report in the Hinweis- und Informationssystem (HIS, the insurers' information system) is a separate question that comes first. HIS is a central database of the German insurance industry. It stores information on damaged vehicles.
Our article Check and delete an HIS entry answers these questions: When does a prior damage in the same part area as a new damage lead to such a report? What does an entry mean in practice? How can you check it?
For a prior damage, have these ready: the repair invoice, the written confirmation from the repair shop that the repair is free of defects, and photos of the repaired condition. Where useful, the values of a paint thickness measurement add to these documents. If no documents exist, the expert documents the professional repair directly on the car.
For old damage, photos with a scale and a clear separation in space from the current damage pattern count. If you know the approximate age of the damage, tell the expert. The clean separation of the areas is what matters. Only damage that you can clearly assign by location and by technical findings can be linked to the current accident.
Important: Tell the expert all known earlier damage before the appointment. This includes small and long-repaired minor damage (Bagatellschaden). The expert can only document what the expert knows or sees. If you do not mention known prior damage, the insurer can claim that the whole report is unusable, not only the affected item. Full disclosure is therefore not a disadvantage. It is the basis for a report that holds up in court and with the insurer.
The document in which a repair shop confirms in writing the professional repair of a prior damage.
A documented prior damage can additionally increase the diminished value, because buyers see the car as an accident car.
When the replacement value (Wiederbeschaffungswert) is determined, the documented prior damage status directly affects the valuation.
When a prior damage in the same part area as a new damage also triggers a report in the insurers' information system (HIS).
Payout of the damage based on the report, without repair.
It can, because the market often applies an extra discount to a car that was repaired several times, no matter how well the repair was done. A professionally removed prior damage has no effect on the repair costs of the current accident.
Yes, everything you know, including old minor damage and damage repaired long ago. If you do not mention known prior damage, the insurer may claim that the whole report is unusable. Full disclosure is therefore a requirement for a reliable report and not a disadvantage for you.
A known reduction pattern: a repaired prior damage is treated as unrepaired old damage. The insurer then deducts repair costs. You can counter this with the damage report. The repair invoice, the confirmation from the repair shop and, if needed, a paint thickness measurement prove the professional repair. If you object, we review the reduction from a technical point of view. Your lawyer handles the legal side.
Only if it was already professionally removed, for example by a paint touch-up. If the stone chip is still visible and untreated, it is technically old damage. In both cases it belongs in the report, because it must be separated in space from the current damage. This applies even if it does not create a claim of its own.
Yes, a missing invoice does not rule out proof. Under the eased rule of evidence in § 287 ZPO, it is enough that the repair was more likely than not. This can come from a confirmation from the repair shop, credible witness statements or the expert's technical finding on the car itself.
Subsequent damage happens after the current accident but before the expert's inspection, mostly through a second, independent event with a different party at fault. The expert separates it technically from the damage in the current case. This way, each party at fault pays only for the damage it caused.
Direct contact with your expert
Maybe the insurer reinterprets your prior damage as old damage. Maybe you are unsure before the appointment what to report. Maybe you do not know whether an inspection is worth it for older damage. A free initial assessment clarifies this before anything is calculated. After that, we document technically which area of your car belongs to the current accident and which does not. For accidents that were not your fault, you do not pay up front. The other party's liability insurance usually pays the costs of the report. We come to you, in Erlangen and the whole Nuremberg Metropolitan Region.
