Traffic Accidents2026-11-04

The other driver had a heart attack at the wheel – so who pays for my loss?

The other driver lost consciousness behind the wheel – and the insurer now writes that their customer was not at fault. Here is why you are still entitled to have your loss made good, which provision governs it and where the limits lie.

The other vehicle drifts across without braking, the driver slumped behind the wheel. The police report later records the cause of the accident not as “failure to give way” but as “sudden illness”. And a letter arrives from the other side’s insurer saying that their policyholder was not to blame for the accident. None of that, however, means that you have to carry your own loss.

In short

The keeper of the other vehicle is liable for your loss even where no one can be reproached with anything: § 7 Abs. 1 StVG ties liability solely to the fact that the damage arose in the course of operating a motor vehicle, not to any fault. You can bring this claim directly against the motor third-party insurer under § 115 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 1 VVG. The heart attack relieves only the driver personally (§ 827 Satz 1 BGB) – the keeper and the insurer remain bound. What really turns into a dispute in these cases is not whether you are entitled, but the apportionment and the amount.

How I help you

I notify your claims to the other side’s third-party insurer, which suspends the limitation period.
I check whether the other side is rightly relying on force majeure or on an unavoidable event – those are the two objections that genuinely come up here.
I have your loss assessed by an expert instructed by you, not by the insurer’s own assessment service.
I work through your heads of claim in full, including loss of use, diminution in value and – where there are injuries – loss of earnings, the cost of running your household and compensation for pain and suffering.
I sort out the interfaces: your own comprehensive cover, your health insurer, your employer, and who ultimately reimburses whom.
If the insurer sticks to an apportionment I consider wrong, I sue for the balance.

Why the keeper is liable even without fault

The keeper’s liability under § 7 Abs. 1 StVG is liability for a danger, not for misconduct. It is enough that your loss arose “in the course of operating” the other motor vehicle. Whether the driver was speeding, daydreaming or unconscious makes no difference to this basis of claim.

The statute allows only one exception to it: under § 7 Abs. 2 StVG the duty to compensate falls away where the accident is caused by force majeure. Force majeure means an exceptional event acting on the vehicle’s operation from the outside – the classic case being a natural force. A driver’s illness does not come from the outside but from the person operating the vehicle; as a rule it is therefore precisely one of the risks that keeper liability is meant to cover. For that reason this objection does not normally hold.

You need neither track the keeper down yourself nor, if he did not survive the accident, write to the heirs. § 115 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 1 VVG gives you the claim directly against the third-party insurer, and under § 115 Abs. 1 Satz 4 VVG the insurer and the policyholder are liable as joint and several debtors. If the vehicle carried no third-party cover, the compensation fund under § 12 PflVG may come into play – though that is subject to its own, narrower rules.

There is one limit. Because fault-based liability drops out here, only keeper liability remains, and that is capped in amount. § 12 Abs. 1 StVG sets a figure of five million euros for personal injury arising from the same event and one million euros for property damage. For an ordinary dented-metal claim that is of no consequence. For serious, lasting injury it can become relevant in practice, because the otherwise unlimited claim under § 823 Abs. 1 BGB is simply not available in these cases.

What becomes of the driver’s liability – and when it survives after all

From the driver personally you recover nothing where there has been a genuine heart attack at the wheel: § 827 Satz 1 BGB releases from responsibility anyone who causes damage in a state of unconsciousness. The driver’s liability under § 18 StVG falls away in parallel, because under § 18 Abs. 1 Satz 2 StVG it ceases where the damage is not caused by the driver’s fault. For you this usually makes no difference, since the insurer covers that same liability through the keeper in any event.

There is, however, one situation in which fault comes back: where the reproach attaches not to the accident but to setting off at all. Someone with a known, actively treated heart condition, someone who felt concrete warning signs shortly beforehand, or someone who had to be expressly advised by a doctor against driving and got behind the wheel regardless, may already be acting negligently at that point. § 827 Satz 1 BGB covers only the state itself, not the decision to drive off in that state. A claim under § 823 Abs. 1 BGB is then back in play – without the ceilings of § 12 StVG. That is why it is worth asking about the history; with serious injuries a great deal can turn on it.

What you receive, and how an apportionment is calculated

If you are yourself the keeper of a vehicle involved, there is no automatic payment of a hundred per cent; instead the position is weighed between the keepers under § 17 Abs. 1 und 2 StVG. The other side will then invoke § 17 Abs. 3 StVG: an unavoidable event that excludes liability. Read the provision closely – an event is unavoidable under § 17 Abs. 3 Satz 2 StVG only if both the keeper and the driver observed every care called for in the circumstances. The question, then, is not whether the driver could help it, but whether that care was observed. A vehicle that veers unsteered onto the oncoming lane will as a rule not meet that standard. Your own operating risk then recedes behind the danger that actually materialised in the other vehicle.

It is different if you were struck as a pedestrian, a cyclist or a passenger: § 17 StVG then does not apply, and the only deduction is for whatever you must accept as your own fault (§ 9 StVG, § 254 BGB).

The calculation runs in this order: first set out each head of claim separately – repair cost or replacement value less salvage value, diminution in value, expert’s fees, towing, hire car or loss of use, registration costs, a lump sum for incidental expenses. Then apply the liability apportionment to the total. Importantly, an apportionment cuts everything down with it, including the reimbursement of my fees. Where there are injuries, the cost of medical treatment, loss of earning capacity and increased needs under § 11 Satz 1 StVG are added – and compensation for pain and suffering, because § 11 Satz 2 StVG expressly allows fair monetary compensation under keeper liability as well. You do not need any fault for that.

Time limits: when your claim ends

The standard limitation period of three years applies (§ 195 BGB), and under § 199 Abs. 1 BGB it begins only at the end of the year in which the claim arose and you knew of the wrongdoer and the circumstances. For an accident in November 2026 that means: expiry on 31 December 2029. For claims arising from injury to body or health, § 199 Abs. 2 BGB sets the outer limit only after 30 years.

Two points are easily overlooked here. First: as soon as the claim has been notified to the insurer, the limitation period is suspended under § 115 Abs. 2 Satz 3 VVG – until the insurer’s decision reaches you in text form. From the moment it arrives the clock runs on again, and often faster than clients expect. Second: against the insurer the limitation period ends at the latest ten years after the loss occurred, under § 115 Abs. 2 Satz 2 VVG, regardless of everything else.

A typical case

A client is driving on a country road within the speed limit. An estate car comes towards her, drifting across the centre line without any reaction at all; the driver suffers a heart attack at the wheel and does not survive the accident. Her car is a write-off, and she is left with a shoulder injury and six weeks unable to work. The third-party insurer refuses everything at first: no fault, unavoidable event. After the claims are notified, the traffic-accident file is examined and an independent loss report is produced, nothing remains of the objection; what is paid is the vehicle damage, loss of use, the expert’s fees, loss of earnings and compensation for pain and suffering. The only thing still in dispute at the end is the size of the diminution in value.

Common mistakes

Believing the first refusal letter. “Our policyholder is not at fault” is not a statement about § 7 Abs. 1 StVG but about § 823 BGB – two different things.
Waiting months for the public prosecutor to release the file. Notifying the insurer does not need the file and suspends limitation at once.
Having the vehicle repaired or scrapped before the damage is documented. After that the evidence is gone, and the burden of proof is on you.
Leaving the assessment to the other side’s inspection service. It works for the insurer, not for you.
Signing a settlement declaration too soon after an injury. As a rule, later consequences are thereby settled along with everything else.
Not asking whether there were pre-existing conditions or warning signs. That is exactly where an additional, unlimited liability may hang.

Frequently asked questions

Does the insurer pay even if the other driver has died?

Yes. The direct claim under § 115 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 1 VVG lies against the third-party insurer and is independent of what becomes of the driver. You do not have to trace heirs or enforce against an estate. In practice you settle the claim with the insurer alone.

Will I get compensation for pain and suffering even though no one is at fault?

Yes. § 11 Satz 2 StVG allows fair monetary compensation within fault-independent keeper liability as well. No reproach against the driver or keeper is needed for it. The amount depends on the nature, duration and consequences of the injury.

Do I have to prove that it was not a heart attack?

No, and you should not try. For your claim under § 7 Abs. 1 StVG it is enough that the damage arose in the course of operating the other vehicle. Anyone relying on force majeure (§ 7 Abs. 2 StVG) or on an unavoidable event (§ 17 Abs. 3 StVG) must plead and prove that its requirements are met – and that is the other side.

Should I bring in my own comprehensive cover?

Often yes, in parallel. Comprehensive cover pays quickly and without a liability dispute; it then recovers the money from the other side afterwards. Before you do so, it should be clear how your excess and any no-claims downgrade will be handled and which heads of claim the comprehensive cover does not meet at all, such as loss of use or compensation for pain and suffering.

What will it cost me to have a solicitor handle this?

My fees are governed by the RVG. Where the other side is liable, they form part of your recoverable loss – though only proportionately where there is a liability apportionment. If you have legal-expenses insurance, I will request cover for you. What it will come to in your case I will tell you at the first consultation, before I take any action.

Your next step

If the other side’s insurer has written to you saying their customer is not at fault, do not file the letter away as a rejection. Send me the letter, the police accident notice or the file reference instead and – if you have them – photos of the vehicles. I will then tell you which basis of claim holds good here, what apportionment is realistic to expect and which time limits are running; you will find more about my work in road-traffic accident law on the subject page. The sooner the loss is documented and notified to the insurer, the less can be disputed later.

I work nationwide; we hold the first consultation by video or telephone.

This article gives general information and does not replace an examination of your individual case.

This article provides general information and is no substitute for legal advice in an individual case. Last updated: 2026-11-04.

Christian Czirnich, Rechtsanwalt (attorney at law), Kirchseeon near Munich

Tell me how the accident happened and what the insurer wrote – I will take a look.

I read every message myself and usually reply on the next working day. What you write to me is covered by legal professional privilege from the first word, even if no engagement comes about. The initial assessment is free of charge.