Obligation to provide proof for accidents involving wild animals - Claimants required to produce unambiguous evidence
After a wildlife accident, motorists who want to file a claim on their comprehensive car insurance policy would have to provide evidence that the wild animal had actually caused the damage that arose. In a recent ruling, a claim against a motor vehicle insurer was rejected even though a dead deer had been found at the spot.
After an alleged wildlife accident, the claimant ‘K’ had claimed compensation of €2,730 as well as the reimbursement of towing costs of €223.23 from the insurance company under his comprehensive car insurance policy. K had contended that, on the bend in a road, a deer had suddenly leapt on to the car bonnet, which was why he had no longer been able to see anything and had lost control of the vehicle. He hit the right-hand crash barrier twice and, after coming to a standstill, the deer had ultimately slipped off the car bonnet. He had then informed the police and when they arrived the dead deer was still lying at the aforementioned spot. The car was a total write-off. However, the insurer refused to settle the claim on the grounds that, except for the dead deer, no indication could be found that there had been an accident involving a wild animal.
The local court in Munich, in its ruling of 22.8.2024 (case reference: 123 C 13553/23) dismissed the claim because no evidence had been provided to demonstrate that the deer had caused the accident. The analysis of the accident in the expert consultant's report was admittedly able to ascribe individual defects to contact with a crash barrier at the spot. With regard to the significant damage to the vehicle, there were however no connecting factors implying that there had been a collision with a deer. Nor could the claimant produce any witnesses who had observed the sequence of events leading to the accident. Moreover, shortly afterwards, the claimant sold the vehicle, which was subsequently scrapped. In this respect, he prevented the court-appointed expert from being able to carry our further inspections. In addition, by his own account, K had had ten wildlife accidents within a period of two to three years and had filed claims with various insurance companies because he had switched insurers. In view of the circumstances outlined above, the Munich judges considered K’s statements to be insufficient to prove that the damage - in respect of which compensation was being sought - was attributable to a deer coming to rest on his car bonnet, and that he had twice come into contact with a crash barrier through no fault of his own.
