regulierungsanforderung

What it does

The skill focuses on regulatory demands to insurers in a Verkehrsunfall Schadensersatz scenario. It asks for clarifying questions about the incident, vehicle details, whether a fictional or concrete calculation is used, the insurer and claim number, additional damage items, potential contributory fault, and whether social security/regressions apply, plus a prompt to identify the client’s actual objective and preferred outcome.

How it works

It prescribes collecting and verifying components: key dates and deadlines, applicable norms across StVG, BGB, and related statutes, and responsible recipients (mandant, opponent, authorities). It instructs gathering documents such as police reports, expert reports, invoices, and witness statements, and ensures current norm changes are checked via live sources. It then delineates a decision framework to determine whether a direct claim against the insurer (Direktanspruch) exists, how to structure a damages claim (reparaturkosten, merkantiler minderwert, sachverständigenkosten, mietwagen, nutzungsausfall, schmerzensgeld, etc.), and how to separate or aggregate risk categories ( Werkstattrisiko vs Sachverständigenrisiko) with concrete normative references.

It also provides a template structure for a Regulierungsanforderung letter to the insurer, including sections for facts, liability, damages, and deadlines, and includes phrasing for scenarios like partial regulation and response. Finally, it outlines a Prüfschema and strategic options to tailor the approach to the client’s situation, plus draft blocks for common argumentation related to entitlement and calculation adjustments.

When to use it

Use when mandating a regulatory request to an liability insurer after a traffic accident to ensure deadlines, form, parties, and remedies are addressed and to prepare a structured output for the insurer.

What it can touch

Instructs use of the provided draft blocks and checklists, referencing legal sections such as § 7 StVG, § 115 VVG, § 249 BGB, § 251 BGB, § 252 BGB, § 253 BGB, § 254 BGB, § 116 SGB X, and related procedural norms. It mentions verification sources like juris.bundesgerichtshof.de and dejure.org for case law citations.

Caveats

Licensing: Apache-2.0. It requires accurate live verification of cited case law and does not quote model knowledge. It emphasizes separating rights from other fields and relying on live sources for norms and decisions. No speculative outcomes are promised; it provides structured steps and templates only.