"We are reviewing the facts" — what this insurer letter really means

---

What you have just received — verbatim

Typical variants of the same letter:

"We confirm receipt of your claim notification. We are reviewing the facts and will contact you once the review is complete."

"Please be patient — we still need time to review the liability situation."

"Your claim notification is on file. A statement of position will follow in due course."

"Owing to the complexity of the facts, we require further clarification."

Four features that appear in all the variants:

• No concrete deadline ("in due course" instead of "by 15.06.")
• No concrete list of documents as to what is being reviewed
• Polite, seemingly constructive, vague
• No acknowledgement and no rejection — the liability situation remains open

If your letter looks like this, you do not have "the normal processing time". You have a legal stalling manoeuvre in the post.

---

What is really behind it

1. Gaining time without legal commitment

As long as the insurer neither acknowledges nor rejects, the limitation period under § 195 BGB keeps running — against you. Every day you wait is a day the insurer takes out of your 3-year window.

2. Avoiding an acknowledgement

An acknowledgement under § 212 BGB would restart the limitation period — three full years from the acknowledgement. That is exactly what the insurer does not want. The phrase "we are reviewing" is legally worthless to you, but expensive if you take it seriously.

3. Generating negotiation fatigue

Road-accident victims are active and combative in the first weeks. After 6–8 weeks of silence, negotiation fatigue demonstrably sets in — the willingness to accept poor settlement offers rises by an estimated 30–40%. Insurers know this. They plan for it.

4. A compliance test

Whoever sends an angry reminder after 6 weeks is taken seriously. Whoever keeps waiting passively after 6 weeks gets, after 6 months, a settlement offer at 40–60% of the legitimate claim. That is industry standard, not the ill will of individual case handlers.

---

What the case law says about this

§ 14 VVG — Maturity "after completion of the inquiries"

The insurer's performance falls due once the inquiries necessary for the review have been completed. A blanket review without a specified need does not count as an "inquiry" — the BGH requires a specified review with an identifiable need for clarification.

The BGH line on "reasonable review time"

The BGH grants liability insurers a reasonable review time — for a clear-cut liability situation typically 4 weeks, for complex personal injuries 6–8 weeks, and for pure property damage with an appraisal submitted often even shorter.

After this period expires, default/delay (Verzug) sets in — automatically and without a reminder, as soon as the documents required for the review were complete.

§ 286 BGB — Default/delay

When default/delay sets in, three independent consequences arise, all of which fall to the insurer's charge:

• Default interest in the amount of 5 percentage points above the base rate (§ 288 BGB) on the legitimate claim — from the onset of default/delay, not from the reminder.
• Lawyer's fees as an independent item of damage caused by default, fully reimbursable, even if you only instruct the lawyer after default/delay has begun (BGH VI ZR 235/13).
• Reminder costs and litigation costs as further items of damage caused by default.

---

What you do now — concretely

💡 The most important rule

Do not wait. Set a deadline. That is not aggressive — it is the legally correct response.

🛠 Three-stage plan

Stage 1 — Deadline-setting letter (today, or at the latest this week)

Within 7 days of receiving the "we are reviewing" letter, you respond in writing (by registered post or by fax with a transmission report — never by email alone) and set a concrete deadline.

Stage 2 — A concrete query (in parallel)

Ask specifically what is being reviewed. That forces the insurer either to specify or to admit that nothing further is missing. Both work to your benefit.

Stage 3 — Reminder with threat of litigation (after the deadline expires)

Has the 4-week deadline expired? A reminder with a 14-day extension, then a lawyer, then an order for payment (Mahnbescheid) or a lawsuit. The costs of this escalation are borne entirely by the insurer — once default/delay has set in.

---

Letter template — Setting a deadline

This template is legally robust and tailored to the BGH position as of 2026. Copy it, fill in the gaps, send by registered post.

[Dein Name]
[Deine Adresse]

[Versicherer]
[Adresse]

By registered post with acknowledgement of receipt

[Ort, Datum]

Subject: Claim number [Nummer], accident of [Datum]
        Setting a deadline for settlement

Dear Sir or Madam,

I refer to your letter of [Datum], in which you state
that you are reviewing the facts.

My complete notice of claim, including all relevant
documents (claim report, police report, expert
appraisal, medical certificates), reached you on [Datum].

I hereby call upon you to inform me, by no later than

                  [Datum + 4 Wochen]

in concrete terms:

1. Which concrete documents you still require for the review,
2. Which concrete clarification you still have to carry out,
3. By when a final statement of position can be expected.

After the deadline set has expired, you will be in default/delay
under § 286 BGB. I will then assert default interest in the amount
of 5 percentage points above the base rate (§ 288 BGB), reminder
costs, and the costs of legal representation as damage caused by
default (cf. BGH, judgment of 18.07.2017, VI ZR 235/13).

Yours faithfully

[Unterschrift]

---

What the insurer is likely to do next

After you set a deadline, the insurer has four standard reactions. Recognise them, and you will already have planned your next move.

Reaction A — A blanket request for documents

"Please submit the following documents: …"

What is behind it: Delay through bureaucracy. Documents you have already submitted are often requested. Your response: Refer in writing to the documents already submitted, stating the date. Resubmit only documents that are genuinely new.

Reaction B — A request for an extension

"Owing to the complexity, we ask for a further 4 weeks."

What is behind it: An attempt to reset the deadline. Your response: Demand concrete reasons. Where liability is clear: grant 2 weeks at most, in writing.

Reaction C — A partial acknowledgement as to the merits

"Liability as to the merits can be acknowledged. The amount remains to be reviewed."

What is behind it: A success — and a legally valuable one at that. Your response: Have the acknowledgement confirmed in writing and record it with the date in your files. The limitation period begins anew under § 212 BGB. Maintain pressure for acknowledgement of the amount.

Reaction D — A sudden rejection

"After conclusive review, we see no obligation to pay."

What is behind it: The insurer is calculating that you will not litigate. Your response: Engage a specialised traffic-law lawyer immediately. The lawyer's fees are reimbursable by the opposing insurer where the accident was not your fault.

---

Frequently asked questions

How long may the insurer really review? With a clear-cut liability situation and complete documents: 4 weeks. For complex personal injuries with late consequences: 6–8 weeks. A blanket "review time" without a specified need for clarification has been repeatedly rejected by the BGH.

Do I have to set a deadline for default/delay to set in? No. As soon as all the documents necessary for the review were complete, default/delay sets in automatically after the reasonable review time expires. A reminder is not mandatory under BGH case law. Nevertheless, setting a deadline in writing makes practical sense — it makes the moment of default/delay provable.

What does the escalation cost me? Where the accident was not your fault: nothing. Lawyer's fees and default interest are independent items of damage caused by default and are to be borne in full by the insurer (BGH VI ZR 235/13).

What if the insurer claims it still needs an appraisal? Ask specifically: Which appraisal, who commissions it, when will it be ready? If the insurer obtains an appraisal at its own expense, that is its timeline — you are not obliged to wait if your own appraisal is already on file.

Can I escalate without a lawyer too? Yes; for the first deadline-setting, the letter script above is sufficient. By Reaction D (rejection) at the latest, or in cases of personal injury, a specialised lawyer is mandatory — and costs you nothing.

What if the insurer does not respond at all? After the deadline expires: a written reminder with a 14-day deadline. If silence continues: an order for payment (Mahnbescheid) (~€50 court costs, reimbursed later) or a lawsuit directly. After default/delay has set in, silence is legally identical to rejection.

---

What you should not do

• Negotiate by telephone without a subsequent confirmation letter. Oral assurances are worthless in practice.
• Resubmit documents wholesale "as a goodwill gesture" without checking whether they are already on file.
• Accept settlement offers under pressure — initial offers in particular typically lie 40–60% below the legitimate claim.
• Let the limitation period lapse. Three years sounds long, but in the insurer's stalling game it passes very quickly.

---

If you don't know how to proceed

We assess, free of charge and without obligation, what you are entitled to after your accident — repair costs, diminution in value, loss of use, compensation for pain and suffering, lawyer's fees. We connect you with specialised traffic-law lawyers who will enforce your claim at no cost risk to you.

→ Free claim assessment

---

Sources

• Versicherungsvertragsgesetz § 14 (maturity of the monetary payment) — Bundesministerium der Justiz, gesetze-im-internet.de/vvg
• Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch §§ 286, 288, 195, 212 — gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb
• BGH, judgment of 18.07.2017, file reference VI ZR 235/13 (lawyer's fees as damage caused by default)
• Hentschel/König/Dauer, Straßenverkehrsrecht, current edition in each case
• Burmann/Heß/Hühnermann/Jahnke, Straßenverkehrsrecht-Kommentar
• ARGE Verkehrsrecht im Deutschen Anwaltverein — verkehrsrecht.de