Home Actuality and Curiosity Damaged car: what probative value does the bodybuilder’s invoice have? Damaged...

Damaged car: what probative value does the bodybuilder’s invoice have? Damaged car: what probative value does the bodybuilder’s invoice have?


The repair invoice from the body shop is not enough to prove the damage caused to the accident car. The Supreme Court confirms it

March 6, 2023 – 5:22 pm

How many times in the office motor vehicle liability renewalthe insurance company offered us a premium reduction in the event of acceptance from afar repair the damaged car in an authorized workshop? Whether it’s a contract taken out online or in a physical agency, it doesn’t matter. There is a specific reason behind this pricing policy. Insurance companies are wary of ordinary body shops, fearing they will get ripped off. Hence the attempt to convey damaged car repair at the company’s trusted body shops. To better understand the situation, however, we must take a step back. There invoice issued by the bodybuilder Is this enough to prove the damage from the accident? It can be considered as the only proof of compensation recognition and payment of the corresponding amount? As we examine in this overview, the motorist who is involved in a road accident and suffers damage to his vehicle must go beyond the bill. Even if the document contains in detail the repairs carried out and the relative price.


When there is acrashed car, the invoice is only one of the required documents. It is not enough on its own to rebuild dynamics of a road accident. And therefore to determine the percentages of fault among the drivers involved or the responsibility of only one of them. The regulatory reference is article 2697 of the Civil Code which governs the burden of proof. Here we read verbatim: “Anyone who wants to assert a right in court must prove the facts on which it is based. Whoever pleads the ineffectiveness of such facts or alleges that the right has been modified or extinguished must prove the facts on which the opposition is based.”. In other words, the motorist must prove the circumstances beyond the invoice. This is where article 2054 of the Civil Code comes in which, among other things, puts pen to paper as “in the event of a collision between vehicles, it is assumed, until proven otherwise, that each of the drivers also contributed to causing the damage suffered by the various vehicles”. The invoice only proves the type and extent of the damage to the accident car. But not the circumstances of the accident.


To get the damage compensation deriving from a road accident, it is not enough to present the bodybuilder’s invoice certifying the repair of the damaged vehicle. Depending on the circumstances, the accident report, the report from the public security authority, statements from eyewitnesses and any recordings from cameras present at the scene of the accident may be necessary. Only after acquiring these evidence and after having reconstructed the details of the facts, it is possible to establish the percentages of contributory negligence or to assign full responsibility to a single driver of the vehicles involved. And then proceed with the claim. The burden of proof – Civil Code in hand – rests with the person who suffered the damage. In this context, the bodywork invoice this is only the last step in reconstructing the facts. Test only the type and extent of the damage to the accident vehicle. But not how, when and under what circumstances the car was involved.


On the question of the relationship between the documents, bills and wrecked car the Court of Cassation intervened. The Supreme Court justices set the parameters necessary to arrive at the attribution of liability for damages. It talks about:

  • the existence or exclusion of the causal relationship between the behavior of the individual subjects and the harmful event;
  • the reconstruction of the modalities of the event generating the damage;
  • the assessment and rating of the fault;
  • evaluation of the conduct of the individual subjects involved.

In the case considered by the Supreme Court, the refund request submitted by the damaged party was rejected due to a damaged vehicle repair bill that was inconsistent with the described methods of the accident. Specifically, it was a minor rear-end collision between a car exiting a parking lot and another car traveling at moderate speed on the main road.

Source : Sicur Auto



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Exit mobile version