Legal Analysis: Motor Vehicle Liability Claim of 04.02.2026

Claim No. 26-11-634/533153-Z — Stiskala v. Neumann

Date of analysis: 11 February 2026

• Legal Analysis: Motor Vehicle Liability Claim of 04.02.2026
  • Claim No. 26-11-634/533153-Z — Stiskala v. Neumann
• PART ONE: Detailed Summary of the Situation
  • 1. What Happened
  • 2. The Intersection and the Centre Signal
  • 3. The Legal Framework
  • 4. The Same-Insurer Problem
• PART TWO: Actions Without a Lawyer (No Legal Fees)
  • 5. The Police Warning — Do NOT Pay
  • 6. Evidence Gathering
  • 7. Dealing with HUK-COBURG
  • 8. Checklist — Part Two Actions
• PART THREE: Actions Involving a Lawyer
  • 9. When to Engage a Lawyer
  • 10. Choosing the Right Lawyer
  • 11. The Legal Strategy
  • 12. The Regulatory Offence Proceedings [Ordnungswidrigkeitenverfahren]
  • 13. Civil Liability Claim [Zivilrechtlicher Haftungsanspruch]
  • 14. Costs and Who Pays
  • 15. HUK-COBURG's Expected Tactics
  • 16. Case Law Reference Table
  • 17. Summary and Prognosis
  • Sources

PART ONE: Detailed Summary of the Situation

1. What Happened

On 4 February 2026 at approximately 12:55, a collision occurred at the intersection of Grenzstraße and Friedrich-Ebert-Straße in Krefeld-Bockum (PLZ 47799), Nordrhein-Westfalen.

Your mother (Jarmila Stiskalova) was driving along Grenzstraße. She approached the intersection and stopped at a red light [Rotlicht]. When her signal turned green [Grünlicht], she proceeded into the intersection.

The other driver (Neumann) had come from Friedrich-Ebert-Straße and intended to turn left [Linksabbieger]. Neumann's vehicle was stationary in the centre of the intersection, positioned directly beneath a second traffic light [Lichtzeichenanlage] with a painted stop line [Haltelinie] on the road surface at that position.

When your mother entered the intersection on green, Neumann suddenly accelerated without looking to her right. The vehicles collided.

Immediately after the crash, Neumann admitted she had not looked right and had therefore not seen your mother's vehicle ("nicht nach rechts geschaut").

The police issued your mother a written warning with fine [Schriftliche Verwarnung mit Verwarnungsgeld] of EUR 35, citing a violation of the general duty of care [allgemeine Sorgfaltspflicht] under § 1(2) StVO ^[1]. The full legal chain underpinning the warning is:

Step	Provision	Function
1	§ 1(2) StVO [1]	Substantive rule allegedly violated (general duty of care)
2	§ 49(1) Nr. 1 StVO	Classifies a § 1(2) StVO violation as a regulatory offence [Ordnungswidrigkeit]
3	§ 24(1),(3) Nr. 5 StVG	Authorises fines for StVO violations
4	BKat (Bußgeldkatalog [fine catalogue])	Sets the fine amount at EUR 35
5	§ 56 OWiG [2]	Governs the Verwarnung procedure — effective only upon voluntary payment

The police's accusation: your mother entered the intersection without allowing the vehicle already waiting in the centre to clear it. Notably, this is the broadest and weakest charge available under the StVO — a general "you should have been more careful" allegation. The police did not charge a red-light violation, a failure to yield, speeding, or any other specific rule. This significantly limits the accusation's weight in the civil liability analysis.

Both drivers are insured by the same company: HUK-COBURG. This same-insurer situation creates a conflict of interest that is addressed in detail in Section 4 below.

2. The Intersection and the Centre Signal

The intersection of Grenzstraße / Friedrich-Ebert-Straße is located in Krefeld-Bockum — confirmed by the police warning issued by Polizeipräsidium Krefeld (officers Voß and Jennen, marked "KR GE PW Nord DG C") and by a Google Street View screenshot showing "161 Grenzstraße" in Krefeld. Your mother's home address is in 47906 Kempen, a separate town approximately 15 km northwest — the accident did not occur in Kempen.

The critical feature of this intersection is the second traffic light with a stop line in the centre of the junction, positioned on the Friedrich-Ebert-Straße axis. This signal arrangement is consistent with what traffic engineers call partially secured left-turn control [zeitweilig gesicherte Linksabbiegeführung] or partial signalisation [Teilsignalisierung] — a system described in the RiLSA (Richtlinien für Lichtsignalanlagen [Guidelines for Traffic Signal Systems], 2015 edition) ^[3] where a second signal inside the intersection provides left-turners with a protected time window when opposing traffic is stopped.

Under the RiLSA, there are three categories of left-turn control:

Category	German Term	Description
Unsecured	Ungesicherte Führung	Left-turners use gaps in opposing traffic; no separate signal
Partially secured	Zeitweilig gesicherte Führung	A second signal provides protected windows for left-turners
Fully secured	Gesicherte Führung	Dedicated phase with all conflicting traffic streams stopped

The second signal could serve any of several functions:

Possible Function	Implication for the Case
Full red/yellow/green signal for left-turners	Strongest case: if it showed red to Neumann, she committed a Rotlichtverstoß
Repeater signal mirroring the main Friedrich-Ebert-Straße signal	Reduced evidentiary value; less clear whether an independent stopping obligation exists
Flashing amber beacon	No stopping obligation; standard Kreuzungsräumer analysis applies
Pedestrian signal	Not relevant to vehicle traffic

The exact function of the centre signal can only be determined from the signal timing plan [Signalzeitenplan], which must be obtained from the Stadt Krefeld. This is the single most important piece of evidence in the case — it will determine whether the strongest legal argument (a red-light violation by Neumann) applies.

3. The Legal Framework

The liability analysis involves three intersecting areas of German law: the Road Traffic Regulations [Straßenverkehrs-Ordnung, StVO], the Road Traffic Act [Straßenverkehrsgesetz, StVG] governing strict liability and damage apportionment, and the Insurance Contract Act [Versicherungsvertragsgesetz, VVG] governing the direct claim against the insurer. The following sections present each element.

3.1 The Intersection Clearer Concept [Kreuzungsräumer / Nachzügler]

German traffic law recognises that a vehicle which lawfully entered an intersection on green but became "stuck" there — typically a left-turner waiting for oncoming traffic to pass — should generally be allowed to clear the intersection [Kreuzung räumen], even after the signal has changed and cross-traffic has received green. This vehicle is called a straggler [Nachzügler] or intersection clearer [Kreuzungsräumer].

The foundational ruling on this doctrine is BGH, 11.05.1971, VI ZR 11/70 (BGHZ 56, 146) ^[4], which established that a Nachzügler must be allowed to clear but must exercise extreme caution — the longer the vehicle remains in the intersection, the more it must anticipate that cross-traffic has been released.

The doctrine is a case-law creation. Its statutory underpinning draws on § 11(1) StVO ^[5] — the prohibition on entering an intersection one cannot immediately drive through — and § 11(3) StVO, which imposes a general yielding obligation at intersections with unclear traffic situations. The duty of the green-light driver to accommodate a Kreuzungsräumer also rests on the general principle of mutual consideration [gegenseitige Rücksichtnahme] under § 1(2) StVO.

The driver entering on green from the cross-street must, despite their own green light, give the stuck vehicle room to leave — but the stuck vehicle bears the primary responsibility to verify it is safe before moving. The longer a Kreuzungsräumer remains stationary, the greater its duty of care when finally departing, because cross-traffic drivers may reasonably conclude the stationary vehicle will not move.

In a typical intersection-clearer collision, the standard liability split is approximately 2/3 to the driver entering on green and 1/3 to the clearer (BGH, 09.11.1976, VI ZR 264/75) ^[6]. This is the default outcome police and insurers will apply — and the outcome HUK-COBURG would prefer.

3.2 Why This Case Is Different

This case has three critical distinguishing features that push liability decisively toward Neumann:

Feature 1 — Centre traffic light with stop line. Under § 41(1) in conjunction with Annex 2 StVO (Zeichen 294 [sign 294]) ^[7], a stop line paired with a traffic signal creates a legally binding stopping obligation. Traffic lights override all other priority rules — this is the absolute precedence of traffic signals [absolute Vorrangstellung der Lichtzeichen] under § 37(1) StVO ^[8]. If Neumann was positioned at that stop line and the signal above showed red, she was not merely an intersection clearer — she was a driver facing her own red light.

Feature 2 — Neumann's admission of not looking right. Under case law (OLG Hamm, 26.08.2016, 7 U 22/16) ^[9], a clearer who fails to carefully observe cross-traffic before moving can bear sole liability — even where the green-light driver had some opportunity to react. In that case, the clearer had waited approximately 40 seconds then drove off without checking; the court held the clearer 100% liable.

Feature 3 — No flying start [fliegender Start] by your mother. She stopped at red, waited for green, then proceeded normally. Under OLG Köln (23.02.2012, I-7 U 163/11) ^[10], entering with a flying start — accelerating into the intersection the instant the light changes — significantly increases the green-light driver's duty of care. Since your mother stopped and waited, this heightened duty does not apply.

3.3 Genuine vs. Sham Intersection Clearer [Echter vs. Unechter Kreuzungsräumer]

Courts draw a strict line between two categories of Kreuzungsräumer. This distinction is well-documented in legal commentary ^{[11] [12]} and is central to this case.

A genuine intersection clearer [echter Kreuzungsräumer] is someone who crossed their own stop line on green AND was already within the intersection core area [Kreuzungskern] — defined as the area enclosed by the projected kerb edge lines [Fluchtlinien der Fahrbahnränder] — when forced to stop. This person may clear the intersection but must do so with extreme caution (BGH, BGHZ 56, 146 ^[4]; OLG Düsseldorf, 17.05.1993, 1 U 116/92 ^[13]; OLG Brandenburg, 13.02.2025, 12 U 77/24 ^[14]).

A sham intersection clearer [unechter Kreuzungsräumer] crossed their stop line on green but was held up before reaching the Kreuzungskern. This person has no clearing priority and commits a red light violation [Rotlichtverstoß] if they proceed after the signal changes to red (KG Berlin, 24.01.2022, 3 Ws (B) 354/21 ^[15]; OLG Düsseldorf, 30.06.1997, 1 U 185/96 ^[16]).

The KG Berlin ruling (3 Ws (B) 354/21) is directly on point: a driver who crossed the initial stop line on green but stopped before the actual crossing area, then continued driving when the signal turned red, was found to have committed a Rotlichtverstoß — not a privileged intersection clearing. The court imposed EUR 250, penalty points, and a one-month driving ban [Fahrverbot].

If the centre traffic light and stop line on Friedrich-Ebert-Straße define a secondary stopping point within the intersection, Neumann may have been an unechter Kreuzungsräumer — someone who entered the intersection on green initially but was then required by the centre signal to stop again, and who drove off in violation of that red signal.

The distinction can be summarised as follows:

	Echter Kreuzungsräumer	Unechter Kreuzungsräumer
Entry	Crossed stop line on green	Crossed stop line on green
Position when stopped	Inside the Kreuzungskern	Before the Kreuzungskern
Legal status	Clearing priority with extreme caution	No clearing priority
Consequence of proceeding on red	Tolerated if cautious	Rotlichtverstoß

The burden of proof [Darlegungs- und Beweislast] for Kreuzungsräumer status lies with the person claiming it (KG Berlin, 13.06.2019, 22 U 176/17) ^[17]. Neumann must prove she was within the Kreuzungskern at the time of the signal change. The OLG Brandenburg (12 U 77/24, February 2025) ^[14] — the freshest appellate synthesis of the Kreuzungsräumer doctrine — confirms and consolidates all of these principles.

3.4 The Direct Claim Against the Insurer [Direktanspruch]

Under § 115 VVG ^[18], your mother has a direct claim [Direktanspruch] against HUK-COBURG as Neumann's motor liability insurer [Kfz-Haftpflichtversicherer]. She does not need to sue Neumann personally — she can claim compensation directly from Neumann's insurer. Neumann and HUK-COBURG are jointly and severally liable [gesamtschuldnerisch haftend]. Filing the claim suspends the limitation period [hemmt die Verjährung], providing additional time security.

Additionally, Neumann had an independent duty under § 9(3) StVO ^[19] to let oncoming traffic pass before completing a left turn [Linksabbieger muss entgegenkommende Fahrzeuge durchfahren lassen]. Her failure to look right before accelerating is also a violation of this provision — providing a separate legal basis for liability independent of the entire Kreuzungsräumer analysis. The left-turner's yielding duty under § 9(3) StVO is absolute and does not depend on the signal question.

3.5 Two Possible Scenarios

The entire case turns on the function of the centre signal. There are two scenarios:

Scenario A — The centre signal was a binding red/green traffic light for left-turners:

If this signal showed red to Neumann when she drove off, she committed an independent red light violation [Rotlichtverstoß] under § 37(2) sentence 1 StVO ^[8]. Under OLG Saarbrücken (21.04.2023, 3 U 11/23) ^[20], a Rotlichtverstoß constitutes grossly negligent conduct [grob fahrlässiges Verhalten] that entirely absorbs the other party's operational risk [Betriebsgefahr] and any minor fault. The intersection-clearer doctrine does not apply at all — Neumann would be treated simply as a driver who ran a red light. Your mother, entering on green, had no duty to anticipate that another driver would commit a red-light violation; the trust principle [Vertrauensgrundsatz] protects her.

Expected result: Neumann bears 100% liability.

Scenario B — The centre signal is not an independently binding traffic light:

If the signal had no independent regulatory function (e.g., a flashing amber beacon or a repeater), the case falls into the standard intersection-clearer framework. Even then, Neumann's admission of not looking right constitutes a severe care violation. Under KG Berlin (22 U 176/17), the Kreuzungsräumer has no automatic priority [kein automatisches Vorrecht] and must first attempt to communicate or verify that cross-traffic will yield before moving. Neumann made no such attempt.

Expected result: Neumann bears 50–100% liability, depending on how the court weighs her admission against the standard Kreuzungsräumer split.

3.6 Liability Outcome Range

Scenario	Mother	Neumann	Legal Basis
Best case: centre signal red for Neumann	0%	100%	OLG Saarbrücken 3 U 11/23; KG 3 Ws (B) 354/21
Good case: no red-light proof, but Neumann's admission + no communication	20–30%	70–80%	OLG Hamm 7 U 22/16; KG 22 U 176/17
Middle case: standard Kreuzungsräumer, admission partially offset	50%	50%	KG Berlin baseline for no-communication cases
Worst case: standard 2/3–1/3 split, all special factors ignored	67%	33%	BGH VI ZR 264/75

The range is wide because the single most decisive fact — the centre signal's function — is still unconfirmed. Obtaining the Signalzeitenplan narrows this range dramatically. If it confirms a binding signal, the outcome moves firmly to the best case. If it does not, the secondary arguments (Neumann's admission, no flying start, § 9(3) left-turner duty) still place the case squarely in the "good" to "middle" range.

3.7 Honest Risk Assessment

Factors in your mother's favour:

1. The centre traffic light with stop line — if it showed red for Neumann, she committed an independent violation removing her from the Kreuzungsräumer category entirely. Under OLG Saarbrücken (3 U 11/23), her Rotlichtverstoß absorbs your mother's Betriebsgefahr.
2. Neumann's admission of not looking right — under OLG Hamm (7 U 22/16) and KG Berlin (22 U 176/17), a clearer who fails to observe cross-traffic and makes no attempt to communicate before moving bears sole liability.
3. No flying start — your mother stopped at red, waited for green, then proceeded normally. Under OLG Köln (I-7 U 163/11), the longer green has been showing, the more the entering driver may trust the intersection is clear.
4. The police charged only § 1(2) StVO — the weakest, most general provision in traffic law, implicitly conceding that no specific rule was violated.

Factors potentially against your mother:

1. She could see Neumann — a visible vehicle in the intersection triggers a heightened duty of care even for the green-light driver under the general principles of § 1(2) StVO and § 11(1) StVO.
2. Timing of entry — if she entered very early in the green phase, the trust principle [Vertrauensgrundsatz] is somewhat weaker. Courts hold that the longer green has been showing, the more the entering driver may trust the crossing is clear (OLG Hamm 7 U 22/16: in that case, green had been showing for at least 19 seconds and another vehicle had already passed through — here, the exact timing is not yet known).
3. Operational risk [Betriebsgefahr] — under § 7 StVG ^[21] and § 17 StVG ^[22], every motor vehicle carries an inherent risk that can result in residual liability even without fault. Only an unavoidable event [unabwendbares Ereignis] under § 17(3) StVG can eliminate this entirely — requiring proof that even an ideal driver [Idealfahrer] could not have avoided the collision. This is a very high bar, rarely met in practice.
4. OLG Saarbrücken (3 U 28/24, September 2024) ^[23] — a ruling refusing to assign 100% liability to a clearer even where the clearer drove off without looking, because the green-light driver also failed to exercise particular caution at an intersection with obstructed sight. This shows courts expect situational awareness from both parties.

Why these risks are manageable:

Neumann's own admission destroys any argument that she exercised the required extreme caution. Your mother's event description [Ereignisbeschreibung], drafted the day after the accident (05.02.2026), confirms she stopped at red and then proceeded on green — not a flying start. The critical question is not whether she should have seen Neumann (she did), but whether Neumann had any right to suddenly accelerate without looking.

The law does not require a green-light driver to wait indefinitely for a stationary vehicle; it requires alertness and readiness to brake. A driver entering on green is entitled to rely on the trust principle [Vertrauensgrundsatz] — the expectation that other road users will obey the law — unless there are concrete indications of an imminent violation. A stationary vehicle in the intersection centre, beneath a traffic light, does not constitute such a concrete indication: it is the normal expected appearance of a left-turner waiting for a protected phase.

Even in the worst-case scenario (the standard 2/3–1/3 split under BGH VI ZR 264/75), your mother would still recover 33% of her damages from Neumann's insurer. Every factual element that distinguishes this case from the standard — the centre signal, the admission, the absence of a flying start — pushes the split in her favour.

4. The Same-Insurer Problem

Both your mother and Neumann are insured by HUK-COBURG. This means:

• Your mother's liability policy [Kfz-Haftpflichtversicherung] would pay Neumann's damage if your mother is at fault.
• Neumann's liability policy would pay your mother's damage if Neumann is at fault.
• Both policies are held by the same company. Every euro HUK-COBURG pays to your mother on Neumann's behalf is a euro out of HUK-COBURG's pocket — and vice versa.

Under the HUK-COBURG AKB 2026 (Allgemeine Bedingungen für die Kfz-Versicherung [General Motor Insurance Conditions]), section A.1.1 ^[24], the insurer holds a claims settlement authority [Regulierungsvollmacht] — broad discretion to settle or reject claims in the policyholder's name. The insurer's dual obligation is: (a) to pay justified claims [berechtigte Ansprüche befriedigen] against its policyholder, and (b) to defend unjustified claims [unberechtigte Ansprüche abwehren] on its policyholder's behalf. When both parties are its own customers, HUK-COBURG must fulfil both obligations simultaneously for both sides — creating a structural incentive to minimise total administrative cost and internal conflict by proposing an equal fault split [Teilschuld, 50/50], regardless of the actual merits.

There is no statutory divisional separation [Spartentrennung] specifically requiring Chinese walls within a single non-life insurer handling same-party accidents. However, § 1a VVG (Vertriebstätigkeit des Versicherers [distribution activity of the insurer]) ^[25] requires insurers to act honestly, fairly, and professionally in the best interests of policyholders. A settlement pushed for internal convenience rather than on the merits would violate this duty.

HUK-COBURG's documented track record reinforces this concern:

• A 2017 Forsa survey ^[26] of 1,072 specialist traffic law attorneys [Fachanwälte für Verkehrsrecht] found that 68% reported "frequent problems" [häufige Probleme] with HUK-COBURG's claims handling — the highest rate of any insurer surveyed.
• The Süddeutsche Zeitung reported ^[27] that HUK-COBURG had accumulated a backlog of over 300,000 unprocessed documents [Schriftstücke], with straightforward accident claims taking 2–3 months to process.
• The BaFin (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht [Federal Financial Supervisory Authority]) responded with a supervisory communication [Aufsichtsmitteilung] on 11 April 2025 ^[28], establishing that standard claims must be processed within approximately one month (§ 14 VVG ^[29]).
• In its 2024 annual report [Jahresbericht 2024], the insurance ombudsman [Versicherungsombudsmann] ^[30] recorded 28,904 complaints across all insurance types — up 34% from the previous year — with delayed claims processing as the dominant theme.

What this means in practice: HUK-COBURG's first instinct will be to propose a 50/50 split — quick, administratively convenient, and requiring minimal investigation. Without legal pushback, there is a significant risk that this default outcome is imposed regardless of the evidence.

Professional legal representation is essential to ensure the distinguishing features of this case are properly argued. Parts Two and Three of this analysis address, respectively, the actions the family can take without a lawyer (evidence gathering, insurance dealings, escalation paths) and the strategy requiring professional legal counsel.

PART TWO: Actions Without a Lawyer (No Legal Fees)

This section covers everything the family can investigate, document, and act on independently.

5. The Police Warning — Do NOT Pay

5.1 How the Warning System Works

A written warning with fine [Schriftliche Verwarnung mit Verwarnungsgeld] under § 56 OWiG (Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten [Act on Regulatory Offences]) ^[31] is the lightest form of sanction. It only becomes legally effective if the recipient:

• Has been informed of their right to refuse [Weigerungsrecht], AND
• Agrees, AND
• Actually pays the fine — either immediately or within the payment deadline [Zahlungsfrist], which should be approximately one week (§ 56(2) OWiG).

It is NOT a fine [Bußgeld], NOT a court judgment, and NOT an admission of guilt [Schuldanerkenntnis]. There is no legal remedy against a Verwarnung — one can only accept or refuse it.

Important: Once paid, § 56(4) OWiG bars further prosecution for the same offence under the same factual and legal grounds. This means payment creates an irreversible closure effect — not technically an admission, but an end to the proceeding.

5.2 Why You Must Not Pay

The EUR 35 is trivial. The signal it sends to HUK-COBURG is not.

While a paid Verwarnung is not technically a formal admission of guilt in the strict legal sense, insurers routinely treat it as one in practice. The law firm Kanzlei Lenné (Leverkusen), represented by Rechtsanwalt Dominik Fammler (Fachanwalt für Verkehrsrecht [specialist attorney for traffic law]) ^[32], has explicitly warned:

"Denn stehen Sie erst einmal als Unfallverursacher in der Unfallmitteilung der Polizei und haben auch noch ein Verwarngeld gezahlt, so werden das die mit der Unfallregulierung betrauten Versicherungen regelmäßig als Schuldanerkenntnis werten." (If you already appear as the accident causer in the police report and have also paid a Verwarngeld, the insurance companies handling the claim will regularly treat this as an admission of guilt.)

If your mother pays, HUK-COBURG will cite this when allocating fault. Do not pay.

5.3 What Happens If You Don't Pay

The warning does not take effect. The authority (Polizeipräsidium Krefeld) may then initiate a formal regulatory offence proceeding [Bußgeldverfahren] and issue a formal penalty notice [Bußgeldbescheid]. Against that notice, a formal objection [Einspruch] can be filed within two weeks of service [innerhalb von zwei Wochen nach Zustellung] (§ 67(1) OWiG ^[33]), leading to a court hearing [Hauptverhandlung] at the Amtsgericht Krefeld.

However, for a EUR 35 offence where the facts are genuinely contested, there is a reasonable chance the matter is simply discontinued [Einstellung des Verfahrens]. The authority has limited resources and typically prioritises more serious cases.

5.4 The Hearing Form [Anhörungsbogen]

The police warning includes a hearing/response form [Äußerungsbogen] on page 4.

Mandatory section — Personal details [Pflichtangaben zur Person]: Your mother MUST provide her personal information (name, date of birth, address). Refusing to do so is a separate offence under § 111 OWiG.

Voluntary section — Statement on the matter [Angaben zur Sache]: She is NOT obligated to make any statement about the incident. The right to remain silent [Schweigerecht] applies.

Recommended approach: Make a brief factual statement referencing only:

• She entered the intersection on green.
• The other driver was stopped at the centre of the intersection next to a traffic light with a stop line.
• The other driver stated after the accident that she had not looked to the right.
• She contests the characterisation of the incident as a standard intersection-clearing situation [Kreuzungsräumersituation].

Do NOT speculate about signal colours or legal conclusions. Keep it factual. Attach the already-drafted event description [Ereignisbeschreibung] as a supplement [Beiblatt].

6. Evidence Gathering

6.1 The Signal Timing Plan [Signalzeitenplan] — HIGHEST PRIORITY

This is the single most important piece of evidence. It will show:

• Whether the centre signal on Friedrich-Ebert-Straße is a full traffic light [Vollsignal] (red/yellow/green) or a flashing beacon / repeater [Wiederholungssignal].
• The signal phases [Signalphasen]: whether left-turners from Friedrich-Ebert-Straße get a separate green phase, and whether the centre signal shows red when Grenzstraße has green.
• The timing relationships between signal groups [Signalgruppen].

How to get it: Write to:

Stadt Krefeld, Fachbereich 61 — Stadt- und Verkehrsplanung ^[34]
Oberschlesienstraße 16, 47807 Krefeld
E-Mail: FB61@krefeld.de
Telefon: 0 21 51 / 86-3700

Request the Signalzeitenplan (signal timing diagram) for the intersection Grenzstraße / Friedrich-Ebert-Straße. Specifically ask for: (a) the Signalzeitenplan / Phasenumlaufplan, (b) confirmation of whether the centre signal is independent or a repeater, (c) the phase relationship between Grenzstraße green and the centre signal state, and (d) any available signal position plans [Signallagepläne].

If Fachbereich 61 redirects you to the KBK (Kommunalbetrieb Krefeld) ^[35] — which operationally manages Krefeld's 273 traffic lights [Lichtsignalanlagen] — follow up there.

Legal basis: This is public infrastructure information obtainable through an informal request or, if necessary, through the Informationsfreiheitsgesetz NRW (IFG NRW) [Freedom of Information Act NRW]. Expected timeline: 4–8 weeks.

➡️ A template request letter in German:

[Absender]
[Name]
[Straße, Hausnummer]
[PLZ Ort]
[E-Mail / Telefon]

[Ort], den [Datum]

An
Fachbereich 61 — Stadt- und Verkehrsplanung
Stadt Krefeld
Oberschlesienstraße 16
47807 Krefeld

Per E-Mail: FB61@krefeld.de


Betreff: Anfrage Signalzeitenplan Kreuzung Grenzstraße / Friedrich-Ebert-Straße,
         47799 Krefeld-Bockum


Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

am 04.02.2026 ereignete sich an der Kreuzung Grenzstraße / Friedrich-Ebert-Straße
in Krefeld-Bockum ein Verkehrsunfall, an dem ich als Beteiligte(r) betroffen bin.

Zur Klärung des Unfallhergangs benötige ich folgende Unterlagen bzw. Auskünfte:

  1. Den Signalzeitenplan (Phasenplan) für die Lichtsignalanlage an der Kreuzung
     Grenzstraße / Friedrich-Ebert-Straße.

  2. Auskunft darüber, ob die Lichtzeichenanlage in der Kreuzungsmitte auf der
     Friedrich-Ebert-Straße (in Fahrtrichtung des Linksabbiegers) als
     eigenständiges Signal mit eigenem Phasenprogramm arbeitet oder als
     Wiederholungssignal (Repeater) des Hauptsignalgebers fungiert.

  3. Die Phasenbeziehung zwischen der Grünphase der Grenzstraße und dem
     Signalzustand des mittleren Signalgebers.

  4. Sofern vorhanden, den Signallageplan mit der Position aller Signalgeber
     an dieser Kreuzung.

Sollte eine formlose Herausgabe nicht möglich sein, stütze ich diese Anfrage
hilfsweise auf das Informationsfreiheitsgesetz NRW (IFG NRW), welches jedermann
ein Recht auf Zugang zu amtlichen Informationen einräumt.

Für Rückfragen stehe ich gern zur Verfügung. Ich bitte um Bearbeitung innerhalb
von vier Wochen.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

[Unterschrift]
[Name]

6.2 File Inspection [Akteneinsicht] — HIGH PRIORITY

Under § 49 OWiG ^[36], the affected party [Betroffener] in a regulatory offence proceeding can request inspection of the case file without a lawyer.

Detail	Information
Who can request	Stiskalova as the Betroffener. A family member can request with a signed power of attorney [Vollmacht].
Where to write	Polizeipräsidium Krefeld, Direktion Verkehr [37], Hansastraße 25, 47799 Krefeld. Tel. 02151 634-0.
What to include	Name, date of birth, file reference [Aktenzeichen] from the Verwarnung, date and place of incident, request for full Akteneinsicht.
Cost	EUR 12 for paper copies by post. Free for electronic transmission or in-person inspection.

What you are looking for: (a) Whether Neumann's admission ("nicht nach rechts geschaut") was documented in the officers' written notes, (b) any measurements or sketch from the scene, (c) Neumann's statement, (d) whether the officers noted the centre signal state, (e) whether an abbreviated incident report [Unfallmitteilung] or a full accident report [Unfallanzeige] was prepared.

➡️ A template request letter in German:

[Absender]
[Name]
[Straße, Hausnummer]
[PLZ Ort]
[E-Mail / Telefon]

                                        [Ort], den [Datum]

An
Polizeipräsidium Krefeld
Direktion Verkehr
Hansastraße 25
47799 Krefeld


Betreff: Antrag auf Akteneinsicht gemäß § 49 OWiG
         Verkehrsunfall vom 04.02.2026, Kreuzung Grenzstraße / Friedrich-Ebert-Straße
         Aktenzeichen/Verwarnungsnummer: [Aktenzeichen aus der Verwarnung einsetzen]


Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

ich, [vollständiger Name], geboren am [Geburtsdatum], wohnhaft [Adresse], bin
Betroffene(r) in dem oben genannten Vorgang.

Am 04.02.2026 wurde mir an der Unfallstelle Kreuzung Grenzstraße /
Friedrich-Ebert-Straße in 47799 Krefeld-Bockum durch die aufnehmenden Beamten
(PK Voß, PK Jennen) eine Verwarnung nach § 56 OWiG in Höhe von EUR 35,00
wegen eines Verstoßes gegen § 1 Abs. 2 StVO ausgesprochen.

Gemäß § 49 OWiG beantrage ich hiermit Einsicht in die vollständige
Ermittlungsakte, insbesondere:

  1. die Verkehrsunfallanzeige bzw. Unfallmitteilung,
  2. die Aussagen und Vernehmungsprotokolle aller Beteiligten und Zeugen,
  3. die Unfallskizze sowie etwaige Messprotokolle,
  4. die dienstlichen Vermerke und Feststellungen der aufnehmenden Beamten,
  5. etwaige Lichtbilder oder Dashcam-Aufnahmen.

Ich bitte um Übersendung der Akte in Kopie (postalisch oder digital).
Alternativ bin ich bereit, die Akte vor Ort einzusehen.

Die anfallenden Kopiekosten übernehme ich.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

[Unterschrift]
[Name]

6.3 On-Site Documentation

Visit the intersection and photograph:

• The exact type of signal in the centre: full three-light signal (red/yellow/green), arrow signal [Pfeilsignal], two-light signal, or single flashing amber. Count the lights in the housing.
• The stop line on Friedrich-Ebert-Straße in the intersection centre — is it a solid white line [Zeichen 294, legally binding] or a dashed waiting line [less significant]?
• The sightlines from the Grenzstraße approach toward the centre of the intersection.
• Any signage (e.g., direction arrows on the road, supplementary signs such as "Bei Rot hier halten").

Take photos from your mother's approach direction (on Grenzstraße) and from the other driver's perspective (Friedrich-Ebert-Straße approaching the centre signal).

6.4 Vehicle Damage Documentation

• Photograph all damage to your mother's vehicle from multiple angles, including close-ups.
• Do NOT have the car repaired yet. The damage is evidence.
• Note the collision point on both vehicles: which part of your mother's car was hit, and which part of Neumann's car made contact. This helps an accident reconstruction expert [Unfallrekonstruktions-Sachverständiger] determine angles and speeds.

6.5 Preserve Your Mother's Account

The event description [Ereignisbeschreibung] already drafted and dated 05.02.2026 is detailed and well-structured. Make sure to:

• Keep the original and make copies.
• Note any additional details: approximate speed when entering the intersection, weather conditions, visibility, whether she attempted to brake or evade.

6.6 Check for Injuries — CRITICAL NEW ACTION

Determine whether your mother or any passenger sustained any injury, even if symptoms appeared only after the accident. Common delayed-onset injuries from traffic collisions include:

• Whiplash [HWS-Schleudertrauma / Halswirbelsäulen-Schleudertrauma]
• Headaches, neck pain, shoulder pain
• Psychological shock [Schockschaden]

Why this matters: If any injury occurred, your mother can file a criminal complaint [Strafantrag] against Neumann under § 229 StGB (negligent bodily harm [fahrlässige Körperverletzung]) ^[38]. Under § 230 StGB, prosecution requires a Strafantrag from the injured party.

Deadline: Approximately 3 months from the day the injured party learns of the offence and the offender's identity (§ 77b StGB). Since the accident was on 04.02.2026 and Neumann's identity is known, the deadline is approximately 04.05.2026.

Strategic value: Even if the criminal proceeding is ultimately discontinued (§ 153 or § 153a StPO), the resulting investigation file [Ermittlungsakte] contains formally documented evidence — including a formal statement from Neumann under caution — all of which becomes available for the civil claim.

7. Dealing with HUK-COBURG

7.1 Obligations Under the Insurance Contract (AKB 2026)

The HUK-COBURG AKB 2026 ^[24] impose specific duties on policyholders after a claim:

Reporting (E.1.1): You must notify HUK-COBURG of the accident within one week. Oral or telephone notification is sufficient. If police are investigating, you must inform HUK-COBURG immediately [unverzüglich].

Cooperation (E.1.2): You must answer the insurer's questions truthfully and completely. You must allow investigations and provide evidence.

Prohibition on unilateral admissions (derived from combined E.2 + A.1.1): The 2026 AKB does not contain an explicit old-style prohibition on admissions [Anerkenntnisverbot]. However, the combined effect of the duty to follow insurer instructions and the insurer's settlement authority [Regulierungsvollmacht] effectively prohibits admitting fault without HUK-COBURG's consent.

Consequences of breach (E.7): In Kfz-Haftpflicht, the insurer's right to refuse or reduce coverage is capped at EUR 2,500 (E.7.3).

7.2 Rules for Dealing with HUK-COBURG

1. Report the claim if not done already — within one week (AKB E.1.1). Report facts neutrally; do not speculate on fault.
2. Do not make any verbal agreements. If HUK-COBURG calls, listen, take notes, agree to nothing.
3. Do not sign anything from HUK-COBURG without having it reviewed.
4. Do not accept a settlement offer [Vergleichsangebot] without professional advice.
5. Do not admit fault in any communication.
6. Do not use a surveyor recommended by HUK-COBURG. Under § 249 BGB ^[39], the injured party has the right to choose their own independent expert [Kfz-Sachverständiger].
7. Instruct HUK-COBURG not to settle any claims from Neumann until the liability question is resolved.

7.3 The Direct Claim [Direktanspruch]

Under § 115 VVG ^[40], your mother's claim for damages is asserted directly against HUK-COBURG as Neumann's motor vehicle liability insurer [Kfz-Haftpflichtversicherer]. This is the Direktanspruch [direct claim] — a statutory right for injured third parties in compulsory motor insurance [Pflichtversicherung].

Key implications:

• Your mother does not need to sue Neumann first — she claims directly from HUK-COBURG.
• HUK-COBURG and Neumann are joint and several debtors [Gesamtschuldner] (§ 115(1) sentence 4 VVG).
• Filing the claim suspends the limitation period [hemmt die Verjährung] until HUK-COBURG communicates its decision in text form (§ 115(2) sentence 3 VVG).

7.4 Escalation Paths (No Lawyer Needed)

Versicherungsombudsmann e.V. [Insurance Ombudsman] ^[30] — If HUK-COBURG's handling is unsatisfactory:

Detail	Information
What	Independent ombudsman for insurance disputes
Cost	Free for consumers
Binding threshold	Decisions against the insurer are binding up to EUR 10,000
Above EUR 10,000	Non-binding recommendations up to EUR 100,000
Processing time	Average approximately 3 months (currently experiencing higher volumes)
Success rate	Approximately 50% for consumers (excludes life insurance complaints)
How to file	Online: www.versicherungsombudsmann.de Email: beschwerde@versicherungsombudsmann.de Post: Postfach 080632, 10006 Berlin Phone: 0800 3696000 (free)
Prerequisite	Must first try to resolve with HUK-COBURG directly
Effect on limitation	Limitation period [Verjährung] is suspended during the proceeding

BaFin Complaint — If HUK-COBURG exceeds the one-month processing standard:

The BaFin's supervisory communication [Aufsichtsmitteilung] of 11 April 2025 ^[28] established that standard claims must be processed within approximately one month. Their position: "Mangelnde Personalressourcen oder auch ein erhöhtes Schadenaufkommen können keine Gründe für eine dauerhaft verzögerte Leistungsbearbeitung sein." (Insufficient staffing or increased claim volumes cannot justify permanently delayed claims processing.)

File a complaint at: BaFin, Graurheindorfer Str. 108, 53117 Bonn; poststelle@bafin.de; Tel. 0228 4108-0.

7.5 Check for Legal Expenses Insurance [Rechtsschutzversicherung]

Check whether your mother (or the vehicle's policyholder) has a traffic legal expenses insurance policy [Verkehrsrechtsschutzversicherung]. If so, note the policy number and provider. This insurance would cover attorney fees for both the civil claim and defence against the regulatory offence [Ordnungswidrigkeitenverfahren].

8. Checklist — Part Two Actions

#	Action	Deadline	Status
1	Do NOT pay the EUR 35 warning	Before the ~1-week payment deadline	☐
2	Fill out the hearing form [Anhörungsbogen] — personal data (mandatory) + brief factual statement with Ereignisbeschreibung attached	Within 1 week of receiving the letter	☐
3	Check for injuries — if any, consult a doctor and file Strafantrag under § 229 StGB	By ~04.05.2026 (3-month Strafantrag deadline)	☐
4	Request the signal timing plan [Signalzeitenplan] from Stadt Krefeld Fachbereich 61 (FB61@krefeld.de)	This week	☐
5	Request Akteneinsicht from PP Krefeld, Direktion Verkehr, Hansastraße 25 (§ 49 OWiG)	This week	☐
6	Visit the intersection, photograph the centre traffic light, stop line, and sightlines	This week	☐
7	Photograph all vehicle damage in detail	Before any repair	☐
8	Report the claim to HUK-COBURG neutrally (facts only, no fault admission)	Within 1 week of accident (by 11.02.2026)	☐
9	Assert the direct claim [Direktanspruch] under § 115 VVG against HUK-COBURG as Neumann's insurer	With the claim report or shortly after	☐
10	Do NOT accept any settlement offer, surveyor appointment, or verbal agreement from HUK-COBURG	Ongoing	☐
11	Check for legal expenses insurance [Rechtsschutzversicherung] — note policy number and provider	This week	☐
12	Preserve all documents: police warning, sketch, photos, Ereignisbeschreibung, all correspondence with HUK-COBURG	Ongoing	☐

PART THREE: Actions Involving a Lawyer

This section covers when to engage an attorney, what to expect, and the legal strategy.

9. When to Engage a Lawyer

Trigger events — engage a lawyer if ANY of the following happens:

1. HUK-COBURG assigns majority fault to your mother (e.g., proposes 50/50 or worse).
2. HUK-COBURG offers a settlement [Vergleichsangebot] that does not reflect full compensation.
3. A formal penalty notice [Bußgeldbescheid] is issued after your mother rejects the warning.
4. The signal timing plan reveals that the centre signal was a full red/green light — this strengthens the case dramatically and warrants offensive legal action.
5. HUK-COBURG sends its own surveyor or pressures your mother to use a specific body shop [Partnerwerkstatt].
6. More than one month passes without HUK-COBURG making a clear liability determination (BaFin standard ^[28]).
7. Any injury is identified — the Strafantrag deadline (~04.05.2026) and criminal procedural considerations require professional guidance.

10. Choosing the Right Lawyer

Engage a specialist attorney for traffic law [Fachanwalt für Verkehrsrecht]. This is a protected title under § 1 FAO — the attorney must have completed additional specialised training and demonstrated significant traffic law caseload.

Requirements:

• Based in Krefeld or the wider Niederrhein area (familiar with local courts and the specific intersection).
• Independent of HUK-COBURG — verify that the firm does not regularly act as HUK-COBURG defence counsel.
• Experienced in insurance disputes [Versicherungsstreitigkeiten] and liability disputes [Haftungsstreitigkeiten].

Search platforms (all verified and functional):

• fachanwalt.de ^[41] — largest specialist directory; filter by Krefeld + Verkehrsrecht
• verkehrsanwaelte.de ^[42] — DAV traffic law network; Anwaltsuche by location
• golocal.de ^[43] — consumer review platform with Fachanwalt category

11. The Legal Strategy

11.1 Primary Argument: Red Light Violation [Rotlichtverstoß]

This argument is conditional on the signal timing plan confirming the centre signal was a binding red/green light showing red to Neumann when Grenzstraße had green.

If confirmed:

• Neumann is not an intersection clearer — she is a driver who violated a red signal (§ 37(2) sentence 1 StVO ^[8]).
• Under KG Berlin (3 Ws (B) 354/21) ^[19], the centre signal with its stop line created a new stopping obligation. By proceeding on red, Neumann committed a fresh violation [Rotlichtverstoß] regardless of her original entry on green.
• Under OLG Saarbrücken (3 U 11/23) ^[21], a Rotlichtverstoß constitutes grossly negligent conduct [grob fahrlässiges Verhalten] and absorbs the opposing party's operational risk [Betriebsgefahr] entirely.
• Your mother entered on green and had no duty to anticipate a red-light violation by the other driver. The trust principle [Vertrauensgrundsatz] applies: a lawful driver may rely on others' compliance with traffic signals (BGH, 03.12.1991, VI ZR 98/91 ^[15]; broader principle confirmed by subsequent jurisprudence).
• Expected result: Neumann bears 100% liability.

Supporting contrast — OLG Frankfurt (23.09.2025, 10 U 213/22): Even a driver who entered on yellow for a U-turn recovered 80% of damages from a driver who committed a 22-second red-light violation. Your mother entered on green — her position is significantly stronger.

11.2 Secondary Argument: Failure of Duty of Care

This argument is independent of the signal question and should carry the weight until the Signalzeitenplan is obtained.

• Neumann admitted she did not look right before driving off. Under OLG Hamm (26.08.2016, 7 U 22/16) ^[17], a clearer who waited while the signal showed red for more than 20 seconds then drove off without checking cross-traffic bears sole liability — the green-light driver (who had had green for at least 19 seconds) bore 0% fault.
• Under KG Berlin (13.06.2019, 22 U 176/17) ^[18], the clearer has no automatic priority [kein automatisches Vorrecht] and bears the burden of proving genuine Nachzügler status. Neumann must establish she was within the intersection core [Kreuzungskern] and entered on green.
• As a left-turner [Linksabbieger], Neumann had an independent duty under § 9(3) StVO ^[4] to yield to oncoming traffic. Her failure to look right is also a violation of this provision.
• The longer a vehicle sits in the intersection, the higher the duty of care when finally moving. The requirements on the Kreuzungsräumer's attention increase with time spent in the intersection [Verweildauer im Kreuzungsbereich] (OLG Brandenburg, 12 U 77/24 ^[23]).
• Expected result: Neumann bears 70–100% liability.

11.3 Tertiary Argument: Rebutting the Police Assessment

• The police charged your mother under § 1(2) StVO — the broadest, most unspecific provision in traffic law. This charge implicitly concedes that no specific rule was violated.
• Your mother did not make a flying start — she stopped at red, waited for green, then proceeded normally.
• The police assessment was made at the scene without knowledge of the signal timing plan and without analysis of the centre traffic light's regulatory function.
• The police's initial assessment has no binding effect [keine Bindungswirkung] on civil liability determination. Courts routinely deviate from police fault assessments.

11.4 Criminal Law Angle (If Injuries Exist)

If your mother or any passenger sustained injuries, the lawyer should:

• File a Strafantrag [criminal complaint] against Neumann under § 229 StGB (negligent bodily harm [fahrlässige Körperverletzung]) ^[38] before the 3-month deadline (~04.05.2026).
• The resulting criminal investigation [Ermittlungsverfahren] generates formally documented evidence — including Neumann's statement under caution — which becomes available for the civil claim via Akteneinsicht.
• Even if the proceeding is discontinued (§ 153 or § 153a StPO), the evidence is preserved.
• Additionally, § 315c StGB (dangerous intervention in road traffic [Gefährdung des Straßenverkehrs]) can be referenced in correspondence as an indicator of the severity of Neumann's violation, even if prosecution under this provision is unlikely.

11.5 Defensive Argument: Addressing the Mother's Potential Co-Liability

The lawyer should prepare for the counterargument:

• The standard Betriebsgefahr of your mother's vehicle (§ 7 StVG ^[6]) can only be fully eliminated by proving unavoidability [Unabwendbarkeit] under § 17(3) StVG ^[7]. This is a very high bar.
• However, under OLG Saarbrücken (3 U 11/23) ^[21], a sufficiently serious violation by the other party causes the Betriebsgefahr to recede entirely [vollständig zurücktreten].
• If the opposing side argues your mother saw Neumann and should have waited: seeing a stationary vehicle does not create a duty to stop at green. It creates a duty to be alert and prepared to brake. The accident was caused by Neumann's sudden, unannounced acceleration, not by your mother entering the intersection.

12. The Regulatory Offence Proceedings [Ordnungswidrigkeitenverfahren]

12.1 Expected Timeline

After your mother rejects the warning (by not paying):

1. Weeks 1–8: The authority may do nothing (many EUR 35 cases are dropped when contested) or may issue a formal penalty notice [Bußgeldbescheid].
2. Within 2 weeks of receiving the penalty notice (§ 67(1) OWiG ^[33]): Your mother (through her lawyer) files an objection [Einspruch].
3. Weeks 8–26: The case may be transferred to the Amtsgericht Krefeld for a hearing [Hauptverhandlung], or the authority may discontinue proceedings.
4. At the hearing: The judge examines evidence, hears witnesses (the police officers), and decides whether the offence is proven.

12.2 Why Fighting This Matters for the Civil Case

The EUR 35 is not the point. What matters is:

• A conviction can be cited by HUK-COBURG as evidence of fault in the civil liability dispute.
• An acquittal or discontinuation [Einstellung des Verfahrens] significantly strengthens your mother's position.
• The court hearing provides a formal venue to enter the signal timing plan and Neumann's admission into the official record.

13. Civil Liability Claim [Zivilrechtlicher Haftungsanspruch]

13.1 What Your Mother Can Claim

If Neumann is found predominantly or fully at fault, your mother is entitled to compensation under § 7, § 17 StVG and § 249 BGB ^[39], asserted directly against HUK-COBURG via § 115 VVG ^[40]:

Category	German Term	Notes
Vehicle repair costs	Reparaturkosten	At brand-workshop rates [markengebundene Fachwerkstatt], not cheapest option
Diminished value	Merkantiler Minderwert	Accident vehicle worth less on the used-car market, even after repair
Loss of use	Nutzungsausfall	Per-day compensation while car unavailable, OR rental car costs [Mietwagenkosten]
Towing and storage	Abschlepp- und Standkosten	If applicable
Expert surveyor fees	Sachverständigenkosten	Independent damage assessment
Attorney fees	Rechtsanwaltskosten	If Neumann is predominantly at fault, her insurer pays your lawyer
Expense flat rate	Auslagenpauschale	Typically EUR 25–30
Pain and suffering	Schmerzensgeld	If anyone was injured

Note on VAT: Under § 249(2) sentence 2 BGB, if your mother settles on a fictitious basis [fiktive Abrechnung] without actually having the repair done, she cannot claim VAT [Umsatzsteuer].

13.2 Process

1. Lawyer sends a claim letter [Anspruchsschreiben] to HUK-COBURG (as Neumann's Kfz-Haftpflichtversicherer, via § 115 VVG).
2. HUK-COBURG has approximately one month to respond (BaFin standard; maturity rule under § 14 VVG ^[29]). After one month, interim payments [Abschlagszahlungen] can be demanded.
3. If HUK-COBURG refuses or offers an inadequate amount, the lawyer sets a final deadline [Fristsetzung].
4. If the deadline passes without resolution, the lawyer files a civil lawsuit [Klage] at the Amtsgericht Krefeld (claims up to EUR 5,000) or Landgericht Krefeld (claims above EUR 5,000).
5. Limitation period [Verjährung]: 3 years from the end of the year in which the claim arose and the claimant had knowledge (§ 195, § 199 BGB). For a 2026 accident: latest 31 December 2029. Filing the claim with HUK-COBURG under § 115(2) sentence 3 VVG additionally suspends the limitation until HUK-COBURG responds in writing.

14. Costs and Who Pays

14.1 Attorney Fee Shifting

Under § 249 BGB, if your mother is not at fault (or not predominantly at fault), the opposing party's liability insurer must pay her reasonable attorney fees:

• Neumann predominantly/fully at fault → HUK-COBURG pays your mother's lawyer.
• Your mother predominantly at fault → she bears her own costs.
• Split fault → costs proportional to the split.

14.2 Fee Estimates

Service	Approximate Cost
Initial consultation [Erstberatung]	EUR 0–250 (capped at EUR 190 + VAT for consumers under § 34 RVG)
Out-of-court representation vs. HUK-COBURG	EUR 500–1,500 (depending on claim value)
Defence against penalty notice + court hearing	EUR 300–800
Civil lawsuit if insurer refuses to pay	EUR 1,500–5,000+ (depending on amount in dispute)

With legal expenses insurance [Rechtsschutzversicherung], all of the above are typically covered minus any contractual deductible [Selbstbeteiligung] (often EUR 150–300).

15. HUK-COBURG's Expected Tactics

Tactic	What They Do	How to Counter
50/50 split proposal	Propose equal fault to avoid internal conflict	Reject with signal timing plan, Neumann's admission, and case law (OLG Hamm 7 U 22/16)
Delay	Take weeks or months to respond	Lawyer sets deadlines; after 1 month (BaFin standard), demand Abschlagszahlungen (§ 14(2) VVG); threaten litigation
Surveyor steering	Push toward their partnered DEKRA surveyor	Insist on independent surveyor (your right under § 249 BGB)
Repair cost reduction	Cut hourly rates, reject OEM parts	Expert report from independent surveyor; litigate if needed
Diminished value denial	Claim car too old	Courts routinely award for vehicles up to ~10 years old
Nutzungsausfall reduction	Offer fewer days or lower daily rate	Expert report specifies repair duration; standard rate tables (Schwacke/Fraunhofer)
Betriebsgefahr argument	Argue mother's vehicle also contributed risk	Counter with OLG Saarbrücken 3 U 11/23: Rotlichtverstoß absorbs Betriebsgefahr

16. Case Law Reference Table

#	Court	Date	Case No.	Ruling	Confidence
1	BGH	11.05.1971	VI ZR 11/70 (BGHZ 56, 146) [13]	Foundational Nachzügler ruling: must be allowed to clear but must verify safety	VERIFIED
2	BGH	09.11.1976	VI ZR 264/75 [14]	Standard 2/3 vs. 1/3 split in Kreuzungsräumer collisions	VERIFIED
3	BGH	03.12.1991	VI ZR 98/91 [15]	Vertrauensgrundsatz: lawful driver may rely on others' signal compliance (context: green-arrow [Grünpfeil]; broader principle confirmed)	VERIFIED
4	OLG Düsseldorf	30.06.1997	1 U 185/96 [44]	Nachzügler outside Kreuzungskern must wait; geographic definition of intersection core	VERIFIED
5	KG Berlin	13.11.2003	12 U 43/02 [16]	Flying start — green driver 100% liable when entering despite seeing clearer	VERIFIED
6	OLG Köln	23.02.2012	I-7 U 163/11 [20]	Flying start raises green driver's duty; longer green = more trust justified	VERIFIED
7	OLG Hamm	26.08.2016	7 U 22/16 [17]	Clearer who waited (>20 sec red) and drove off without looking = sole liability	VERIFIED
8	KG Berlin	13.06.2019	22 U 176/17 [18]	No automatic priority for Kreuzungsräumer; burden of proof on claimer	VERIFIED
9	OLG Zweibrücken	03.05.2021	1 U 18/20 [25]	Standard Kreuzungsräumer collision; clearer must clear cautiously under observation	VERIFIED
10	KG Berlin	24.01.2022	3 Ws (B) 354/21 [19]	Sham Kreuzungsräumer = Rotlichtverstoß if proceeded on red after stopping	VERIFIED
11	OLG Saarbrücken	21.04.2023	3 U 11/23 [21]	Rotlichtverstoß is grossly negligent; absorbs opposing Betriebsgefahr entirely; 100% liability	VERIFIED
12	OLG Saarbrücken	20.09.2024	3 U 28/24 [22]	Green driver must exercise caution with obstructed sight; 2/3 clearer : 1/3 green driver	VERIFIED
13	OLG Brandenburg	13.02.2025	12 U 77/24 [23]	Freshest synthesis: genuine vs. sham Kreuzungsräumer; Kreuzungskern defined by Fluchtlinien	VERIFIED
14	OLG Frankfurt	23.09.2025	10 U 213/22	Even yellow-light entrant recovered 80% from a 22-second red-light violator	VERIFIED

17. Summary and Prognosis

The police's preliminary assessment — that your mother is at fault for entering the intersection without letting the other vehicle clear — is a surface-level reading that ignores two critical facts: the traffic light and stop line in the centre of the intersection, and Neumann's own admission of not looking right.

If the signal timing plan confirms the centre light was a binding red/green signal, then Neumann committed a red light violation [Rotlichtverstoß] and is solely responsible for the collision. Under OLG Saarbrücken (3 U 11/23), this absorbs your mother's Betriebsgefahr entirely. By contrast to OLG Frankfurt (10 U 213/22), where even a driver entering on yellow recovered 80%, your mother entered on green — a significantly stronger position.

Even if the centre signal turns out to be non-binding, Neumann's failure to look right before driving off, combined with the established case law that a clearer has no automatic priority and must verify safety (KG Berlin 22 U 176/17; OLG Hamm 7 U 22/16; OLG Brandenburg 12 U 77/24), means she bears at minimum 50% and likely 70–100% of the fault.

The same-insurer situation with HUK-COBURG makes professional legal representation essential. Without a lawyer, HUK-COBURG has every incentive to propose a quick 50/50 split. With a lawyer — especially armed with the signal timing plan — the family is in a strong position.

Priority actions

1. Do NOT pay the EUR 35 warning.
2. Check for injuries — if any, file Strafantrag by ~04.05.2026.
3. Request the Signalzeitenplan from Stadt Krefeld immediately.
4. Request Akteneinsicht at PP Krefeld, Direktion Verkehr.
5. Photograph the intersection and the vehicle damage.
6. Engage a Fachanwalt für Verkehrsrecht as soon as any trigger event occurs.

Sources

1. § 1 StVO (general duty of care [allgemeine Sorgfaltspflicht]) – dejure.org
2. RiLSA 2015 (traffic signal guidelines [Richtlinien für Lichtsignalanlagen]) – fgsv-verlag.de
3. § 11 StVO (special traffic situations [besondere Verkehrslagen]) – dejure.org
4. § 9 StVO (turning, yielding [Abbiegen, Wenden, Rückwärtsfahren]) – dejure.org
5. BGH, 11.05.1971, VI ZR 11/70 (foundational Kreuzungsräumer doctrine) – dejure.org
6. § 7 StVG (strict liability [Halterhaftung]) – dejure.org
7. § 17 StVG (liability apportionment [Haftungsverteilung]) – dejure.org
8. § 37 StVO (traffic lights [Wechsellichtzeichen]) – dejure.org
9. BGH, 09.11.1976, VI ZR 264/75 (standard 2/3 vs 1/3 split) – dejure.org
10. § 41 StVO + Annex 2 (traffic signs, Zeichen 294 [Vorschriftzeichen]) – dejure.org
11. OLG Hamm, 26.08.2016, 7 U 22/16 (clearer sole liability) – verkehrsrechtonline.de
12. OLG Köln, 23.02.2012, I-7 U 163/11 (flying start doctrine) – dejure.org
13. BGH, 11.05.1971, VI ZR 11/70 – dejure.org
14. OLG Brandenburg, 13.02.2025, 12 U 77/24 (genuine vs. sham clearer synthesis) – dejure.org
15. BGH, 03.12.1991, VI ZR 98/91 (Vertrauensgrundsatz) – dejure.org
16. KG Berlin, 13.11.2003, 12 U 43/02 (green driver enters despite seeing clearer) – dejure.org
17. OLG Hamm, 26.08.2016, 7 U 22/16 – verkehrsrechtonline.de
18. KG Berlin, 13.06.2019, 22 U 176/17 (no automatic priority for clearer) – dejure.org
19. KG Berlin, 24.01.2022, 3 Ws (B) 354/21 (sham clearer = Rotlichtverstoß) – ptc-telematik.de
20. OLG Köln, 23.02.2012, I-7 U 163/11 – dejure.org
21. OLG Saarbrücken, 21.04.2023, 3 U 11/23 (Rotlichtverstoß absorbs Betriebsgefahr) – urteile.news
22. OLG Saarbrücken, 20.09.2024, 3 U 28/24 (green driver caution at obscured intersection) – ra-kotz.de
23. OLG Brandenburg, 13.02.2025, 12 U 77/24 – dejure.org
24. HUK-COBURG AKB 2026 (general insurance conditions [Allgemeine Kfz-Versicherungsbedingungen]) – vpv.de
25. § 1a VVG (insurer distribution activity [Vertriebstätigkeit des Versicherers]) – gesetze-im-internet.de
26. Forsa 2017 survey — insurer claims handling problems – focus.de
27. HUK-COBURG correspondence backlog (2024) – sueddeutsche.de
28. BaFin Aufsichtsmitteilung, 11.04.2025 (claims processing standards [Leistungsanträge Versicherungsbranche]) – bafin.de
29. § 14 VVG (maturity of insurer payments [Fälligkeit der Geldleistung]) – dejure.org
30. Versicherungsombudsmann e.V. (insurance ombudsman) – versicherungsombudsmann.de
31. § 56 OWiG (Verwarnung procedure) – dejure.org
32. Kanzlei Lenné: Verwarngeld nach Unfall – anwalt-leverkusen.de
33. § 67 OWiG (objection deadline [Einspruchsfrist]) – gesetze-im-internet.de
34. Stadt Krefeld, Fachbereich 61 (traffic planning [Stadt- und Verkehrsplanung]) – service.krefeld.de
35. KBK Krefeld (municipal traffic infrastructure [Kommunalbetrieb Krefeld]) – kbk-krefeld.de
36. § 49 OWiG (file inspection right [Akteneinsicht]) – dejure.org
37. Polizeipräsidium Krefeld, Direktion Verkehr – krefeld.polizei.nrw
38. § 229 StGB (negligent bodily harm [fahrlässige Körperverletzung]) – dejure.org
39. § 249 BGB (full restitution [Naturalrestitution]) – dejure.org
40. § 115 VVG (direct claim [Direktanspruch]) – dejure.org
41. fachanwalt.de — specialist attorney search Krefeld – fachanwalt.de
42. verkehrsanwaelte.de — DAV Anwaltsuche – verkehrsanwaelte.de
43. golocal.de — lawyer reviews Krefeld – golocal.de
44. OLG Düsseldorf, 30.06.1997, 1 U 185/96 (Nachzügler waiting duty outside Kreuzungskern) – dejure.org

---

Disclaimer: This analysis is informational and does not constitute legal advice [Rechtsberatung] within the meaning of the Rechtsdienstleistungsgesetz (RDG). For binding legal assessments, consult a licensed German attorney [Rechtsanwalt], ideally a specialist in traffic law [Fachanwalt für Verkehrsrecht]. Case law cited was verified to the best of available knowledge as of February 2026; completeness, current validity, and applicability to the specific facts of this case cannot be guaranteed. In particular, the exact characteristics of the centre traffic signal at the Grenzstraße / Friedrich-Ebert-Straße intersection remain unverified and are the decisive factual question — all liability projections in this document are conditional on this evidence.