Technically reviewed by Maximilian Fromm, independent vehicle expert (B.Sc. in Mechatronics). Last updated: September 2026
An assignment of claim (Abtretungserklärung) transfers a claim to a new creditor under § 398 of the German Civil Code (BGB). In a car damage case, the person whose car was damaged usually assigns their compensation claim to an expert, a repair shop or a lawyer.
After an accident, people often get forms and sign them without knowing what they give up. This page explains what an assignment of claim really means in a damage case, which situations exist and how Model A (fee agreement, Honorarvereinbarung) and Model B (assignment) differ in practice.
This page covers three things. First, two models used in practice, explained side by side. Second, the case law of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) on assignment clauses since 2017, with the latest consolidation from 2024 to 2026. Third, how we refer you to specialized traffic law firms when you have legal questions.
Maximilian Fromm
Founder and Mechatronics Engineer (B.Sc.)
An assignment of claim is a contract. With it, a creditor transfers a claim to another person. This sounds abstract, but it is simple in everyday life: if you have a claim, you can pass it to someone else, who can then claim it in their own name. The legal basis is § 398 BGB. It says: “A claim can be transferred by the creditor to another person by contract (assignment). When the contract is made, the new creditor takes the place of the previous creditor.” The previous creditor then leaves the legal relationship, and the new creditor fully takes their place.
In a car damage case, this means: as the person whose car was damaged in the accident, you have claims against the other party's liability insurance for your costs, for example for the expert's fee. If you sign an assignment of claim in favor of your expert, the expert becomes the owner of this claim and can ask the insurer for payment directly. You then no longer own this part of the claim.
In car damage law, there are three typical situations where assignments of claim appear. They differ a lot in risk and in how practical they are.
What happens: You assign your claim for reimbursement of the expert's fee to the expert. The expert collects the fee directly from the insurer.
What happens: You assign your claim for repair cost reimbursement to the repair shop. It bills the insurer directly, and you leave the repair without paying in advance.
What happens: In theory, you could assign your claim for reimbursement of lawyer's fees under the German Lawyers' Fees Act (RVG). In practice, this is the rarest variant.
Besides assignment, there is a second model used in practice: the fee agreement combined with a payment instruction (Zahlungsanweisung) and an authorization to receive payment (Empfangsvollmacht). Both ways lead to direct billing with the insurer. They differ in the civil law structure and in the effects in a dispute.
Being entitled to claim means: you are the person who asserts the claim against the insurer and who files a lawsuit in a dispute. With a full assignment, this position passes to the person who receives the claim. With Model A, you fully keep the right to claim. The expert only handles his own fee invoice. That means sending the invoice to the insurer and receiving the payment under the payment instruction and the authorization to receive payment. You assert all other claims from the accident yourself or through your lawyer.
Since BGH VI ZR 280/22 (March 12, 2024), an expert who sues on an assigned claim carries the expert fee risk: the insurer may dispute every item of the fee invoice in detail. Model A avoids this situation because no claim is assigned. Because you stay entitled to claim, you would be the one who sues in a dispute, not the expert on an assigned claim.
You hire the expert. He prepares the report (Gutachten) and issues the fee invoice. You instruct the insurer to transfer the fee directly to the expert. An authorization to receive payment allows the expert to accept the payment. You stay the only owner of the claim, and handling runs directly between the two existing parties. If the invoice is actually paid, it also counts as evidence of the necessary costs (Indizwirkung) under BGH VI ZR 491/15 for the amount of the fee claim.
The civil law structure rests on three clearly separate documents that work without an assignment of the claim:
Your order to the expert to prepare the damage report (Schadengutachten)
Your instruction to the insurer to transfer the fee directly to the expert
The expert's right to accept the payment on your behalf
The result is handling that is as practical as with Model B, but without the legal effects of an assignment. It is supported by, among others, BGH VI ZR 491/15 (evidence effect of a paid fee invoice).
Assigning the expert's fee claim to the expert has been common for years. The BGH has set out requirements for the validity of such assignment clauses in several cases (among others VI ZR 274/17, VI ZR 135/19, VI ZR 257/22). Several specific clauses in general terms and conditions (AGB) were ruled invalid because they broke the transparency requirement. BGH VI ZR 280/22 of March 12, 2024 adds a second line. The BGH applied the repair shop risk (Werkstattrisiko) concept to expert costs. This has consequences for collecting fees through an assignment.
If the expert sues the insurer on an assigned claim, the insurer may dispute every single item of the fee invoice in detail: base fee, travel costs, photo costs, writing costs, communication flat rate. Everything is open to review. The expert must prove that each item is reasonable.
The BGH developed the principles on repair shop risk on January 16, 2024 in two decisions (VI ZR 253/22, BGHZ 239, 208, and VI ZR 239/22). With VI ZR 280/22 of March 12, 2024, it applied them to expert costs. According to VI ZR 239/22, the same applies after an unpaid repair shop invoice. If the person whose car was damaged assigns the claim against the party who caused the damage, the assignee carries the repair shop risk. The assignee is the person to whom the claim was assigned.
If the insurer knows that an expert is suing on an assigned claim, it has a clear reason to dispute each item separately. Base fee too high? Travel costs too high? Number of photos not justified? The insurer can dispute all of this, and the expert must offer proof for each of these items.
The evidence effect of a paid fee invoice applies only if you actually paid the invoice yourself.
An assignment of claim transfers a claim from the previous owner to a new creditor under § 398 BGB. In car damage law, the person whose car was damaged typically assigns their compensation claim to an expert, a repair shop or a lawyer. When the contract is made, the previous creditor leaves the legal relationship.
With an assignment as a means of payment, the original claim continues until the new creditor is paid in full. With an assignment in place of payment, the claim ends immediately with the transfer, whether or not the new creditor gets paid. The second type is usually better for you, because your own debt ends at once. It is rare in practice.
With BGH VI ZR 280/22 of March 12, 2024, the repair shop risk concept was extended to expert costs. As a result, an expert who sues on an assigned claim carries the expert fee risk: the insurer may dispute every item of the fee invoice in detail. With Model A (fee agreement without assignment), this situation does not arise, because you stay the person entitled to claim.
A valid assignment under § 398 BGB generally cannot be withdrawn by one side. It is complete with the signature. Exceptions apply, for example for invalid clauses or consumer withdrawal rights under § 312 BGB and the following sections (for example for contracts made outside business premises or at a distance). If in doubt, it is wise to have a lawyer who specializes in this area check the specific declaration.
The assigned claim must be described clearly enough or be identifiable, with assignor, assignee and the specific subject of the claim. General clauses such as “all claims from the damage case” may be too unclear to be valid. If the form is used as AGB, additional AGB law requirements apply. You should not use templates that have not been checked.
BGH case law has classed some common template texts for assigning expert fees as problematic under AGB law (VI ZR 274/17, 135/19, 257/22, 475/15). If you work with a standard form that has not been checked, you risk that the assignment has no effect. If you want to use an assignment, have a lawyer check the clause. Alternatively, the question disappears completely when you work under Model A.
Yes. An assignment is voluntary and is not a legal requirement for ordering a report or a repair. Expert offices and repair shops can work with Model A instead (fee agreement with payment instruction and authorization to receive payment). Some providers insist on the assignment as their business model, others offer both ways. If in doubt, ask for the fee model without assignment.
No. An assignment of claim is not a legally required part of claim handling after an accident. It is often used because providers can then bill the insurer directly. But there are alternatives: with a fee agreement, payment instruction and authorization to receive payment (Model A), you stay the owner of your claim.
Two ways are common. Model A: fee agreement with payment instruction and authorization to receive payment, without assignment of the claim. You stay the person entitled to claim, and the evidence effect of the paid fee invoice under BGH VI ZR 491/15 can apply. Model B: assignment as a means of payment, where the expert becomes the creditor and sues on the assigned claim. BGH case law accepts both models, but they differ in the effects of a fee dispute.
With Model A (fee agreement with payment instruction), you are the one who sues, with the help of a lawyer. The expert is not a party to the proceedings. If the invoice was actually paid, the evidence effect under BGH VI ZR 491/15 applies. With Model B (full assignment), the expert sues on the assigned claim and carries the full expert fee risk under BGH VI ZR 280/22. The insurer may dispute every item separately.
Whether legal support makes sense in your case depends on the facts. It is a legal assessment that a traffic law lawyer makes in each case. CleverCrash works with specialized traffic law firms and refers you if needed. Feel free to ask us in a personal conversation.
For accidents that were not your fault, the expert costs are part of your compensation claim against the other party's liability insurance and are usually reimbursed in full (§ 249(2) BGB). With Model A, you instruct the insurer to pay the fee directly to the expert. If the insurer reduces the payment, a traffic law lawyer you hired usually handles the claim. For accidents that were not your fault, the lawyer's fees can also be reimbursed.
Do you have more questions? We take time for your questions about the damage report.
What people whose car was damaged may be entitled to, which BGH case law applies and how to document the claim properly.
View topic Total lossWhen a repair is still worthwhile despite an economic total loss (wirtschaftlicher Totalschaden).
View topic GuideHow costs are split by the liability share (Haftungsquote) when you share fault, with a calculation example.
View topic GuideThe most common reduction items and the technical reasons against each reduction.
View topic Direct routeTell us about the damage in 2 minutes. We accept the case and prepare the report.
View topic Knowledge hubThe overview of all topic pages about vehicle damage.
Go to overviewAssignments of claim sound like a formality, but they can decide who controls your claim in the end. If you have questions about your specific situation, give us a short call. For the legal assessment of your case, we refer you to specialized traffic law firms from our network. We prepare the underlying damage report as part of our damage report after an accident service. We are based in Erlangen and cover the whole Nuremberg Metropolitan Region. You can find the overview under our service areas.
Note: CleverCrash does not give legal advice. If you wish, we refer you to specialized traffic law firms from our network, with no commission paid in either direction. Details are in our privacy policy.
Last updated: August 21, 2026. The page reflects the case law known at that time.
Legal information, not legal advice. The content of this page serves only as general information about how civil law structures work in car damage law and as a summary of existing case law. It is not a legal service within the meaning of § 2 of the German Legal Services Act (RDG) and does not replace individual legal advice from a traffic law lawyer.
Maximilian Fromm
Independent vehicle expert, B.Sc. in Mechatronics
Maximilian Fromm is an independent vehicle expert and the founder of CleverCrash in Erlangen. He studied mechatronics. Since August 2025, he has written damage reports (Unfallgutachten) for private customers, repair shops and lawyers in the Nuremberg Metropolitan Region. He supports his customers until the insurer pays out.
