Short answer. If your insurer doubts your car damage claim, the dispute usually comes down to a handful of concrete points: was the damage already there, is the stated date of the damage correct, who was driving, can you show proof of purchase, and do the photographs match the damage pattern. A mistake on one of those points is, legally, something quite different from intent to deceive. For your right to payment to be forfeited entirely, the insurer must prove that you intended to induce it to make a payment it would not otherwise have made.
Nederlands: Lees dit artikel in het Nederlands: Beschuldigd van fraude bij een autoschadeclaim: vergissing of opzet?
Türkçe: Bu makaleyi Türkçe okuyun: Araç hasarı talebinde dolandırıcılık suçlaması: yanlışlık mı, kast mı?
Written by Onur Arslan, attorney at Arslan Advocaten. Registered in the specialisation register of the Netherlands Bar (Nederlandse orde van advocaten) for employment law and personal injury law. Last updated: 17 September 2026.
The test: mistake or intent?
Article 7:941 paragraph 5 of the Dutch Civil Code (BW) provides that the right to payment is forfeited if you breached your duty to provide information with the intent to deceive the insurer. In HR 21 February 2020, ECLI:NL:HR:2020:311, the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) explained what this requires: it must be examined whether, in the breach, "the intention was to induce the insurer to make a payment that it would not have made without that breach" (legal ground 3.1.5). The complaint that conditional intent (dolus eventualis) also falls within this test was rejected.
That is a high threshold, and for good reason: forfeiture of rights is the most severe sanction the law provides. There is room between "you stated something incorrectly" and "you wanted to deceive the insurer", and that room is exactly where your defence lies. In the case of a less serious breach, however, the insurer may reduce the payment by the loss it suffers as a result (Article 7:941 paragraph 3 of the Dutch Civil Code). That is a different and much more limited consequence.
Where car damage claims get stuck in practice
| Point | What the insurer investigates | How you rebut it |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-existing damage | whether the damage was already present before the reported incident | earlier roadworthiness test (APK) reports, maintenance invoices, the sale advertisement with photographs, valuation report |
| Date of the damage | whether the stated date and time are correct | fuel receipts, parking transactions, phone data, camera footage, witness statements |
| The driver | who was driving, and whether that person had been declared as a driver | statements, diary, work schedule, communications around the time of the incident |
| Ownership and value | proof of purchase, price paid, mileage | purchase agreement, bank statement, data from the RDW (the Netherlands Vehicle Authority), maintenance history |
| Damage pattern | whether the damage matches the described course of events | a counter-assessment by your own loss assessor |
| Previous claims | your claims history in the CIS database | a claim report is not a fraud indicator; ask for substantiation if it is presented as one |
What else may follow
A finding of fraud rarely stops at the rejection of a single claim. Keep these consequences separate, because each is also assessed separately:
- Rejection of the claim and termination of your policies. If you hold several policies with the same company, more than one may be affected.
- Registration. In the incident register and possibly in the External Reference Register (EVR). What is required for this is explained in Removing or shortening an EVR registration.
- Recovery and investigation costs. Amounts already paid may be reclaimed, and the investigation costs may be claimed through SODA (the bureau that collects investigation costs on behalf of insurers). That claim must be substantiated in its own right; see challenging investigation costs and SODA.
- Criminal complaint. For larger amounts or repeated incidents, the insurer may report the matter to the police. If that track is pursued, a dismissal (the Public Prosecution Service drops the case) or an acquittal has consequences for the registration dispute; see EVR registration after acquittal or dismissal.
Limits on the insurer’s investigation
If the insurer proceeds to a personal investigation, limits apply. In HR 18 April 2014, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:942, the Hoge Raad held that acting in breach of the Code of Conduct for Personal Investigations of the Dutch Association of Insurers constitutes an unlawful invasion of privacy, with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity applying.
An important nuance: unlawfully obtained evidence is not automatically inadmissible in civil proceedings. Article 152 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Rv) provides for the free assessment of evidence; exclusion only comes into play if additional circumstances justify it. Pointing to a breached code of conduct is therefore worthwhile, but your defence must also substantiate what consequence that unlawfulness should have in your case. More on this in fraud investigation by the insurer: your rights.
What you should do now
- Respond, but do not improvise. First ask in writing for the investigation report and the conclusions on which the insurer relies.
- Ask for the opportunity to respond before a final decision is taken, and put that request in writing.
- Gather the documents from the table above, including those that at first sight do not seem to be in your favour. A file that identifies and explains a difficult point itself is stronger than a file in which that point surfaces later.
- Consider a counter-assessment if the damage pattern is in dispute.
- Have your response to a finding of fraud checked before you send it. What you write now will come back in the registration dispute and possibly in a criminal case.
Frequently asked questions
I made a mistake about the date of the damage. Is that fraud?
Not necessarily. For forfeiture of rights under Article 7:941 paragraph 5 of the Dutch Civil Code, the insurer must prove that you intended to induce it to make a payment it would not otherwise have made. A mistake, a faulty recollection or careless wording does not meet that test. In the event of a breach of the duty to provide information, however, the insurer may reduce the payment by the loss it suffers as a result.
The insurer says the damage is old. What now?
Ask for the substantiation: on which investigation, which photographs and which expert assessment does the insurer base that conclusion? Counter it with your own evidence, for example earlier roadworthiness test (APK) reports, maintenance invoices or the photographs from the sale advertisement through which you bought the car. Where there is a difference of opinion about the damage pattern, a counter-assessment is often the only way forward.
May the insurer use my social media?
Publicly accessible information may be viewed, but targeted and systematic investigation into you as a person falls under the Code of Conduct for Personal Investigations and must be proportionate and subsidiary. It follows from HR 18 April 2014 that a breach of that code constitutes an unlawful invasion of privacy; what consequence this has for the evidence is decided by the court on a case-by-case basis.
Do I have to cooperate with an interview with the investigator?
It follows from Article 7:941 paragraph 2 of the Dutch Civil Code that you must provide the insurer with the information it needs to assess its obligation to pay. Cooperation is therefore the starting point. That does not mean you have to go into an interview unprepared. You may ask what the subject is, request a written record and be assisted by an adviser.
What if a criminal complaint has also been filed?
Then two proceedings run side by side with different standards. Criminal law applies a stricter standard of proof than civil law, so a dismissal or acquittal does not automatically mean that the registration will be removed. It is, however, a weighty argument, especially if the insurer relies on the same facts.
Further reading
- Burden of proof in insurance fraud: who has to prove what?
- Your insurer accuses you of fraud
- Car insurance refused because of a CIS or EVR entry
- Lawyer for an EVR or CIS registration
Sources and methodology
The test for intent to deceive comes from HR 21 February 2020, ECLI:NL:HR:2020:311, legal ground 3.1.5, which follows HR 25 March 2016, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:507 on Article 7:930 paragraph 5 of the Dutch Civil Code. The limits on personal investigations and the use of unlawfully obtained evidence follow from HR 18 April 2014, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:942 and Article 152 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure. Each judgment was given on its own set of facts and offers no guarantee of the outcome in your case. Source texts checked on 17 September 2026.
Legally reviewed by Onur Arslan, attorney at Arslan Advocaten. Reviewed on 17 September 2026.
