Hello municipality, in March had a liability damage on the car, where another car drove backwards into the rear of my parked vehicle and punched a corresponding large hole in my bumper with the trailer train/trailer coupling. After the self-regulation will of the causer has dissolved into air… I was then 2 weeks ago with the expert. Expert report was quickly finished and with the insurance of the causer. Now the final amount differs. in the report of the amount determined and transferred by the insurer. In the report a point “NFA/ORTEIL COMPARISON OF LACKING” is estimated with a deduction of 40,- € from the net repair costs. In the letter of the insurance are deducted from the almost net final amount of the expert (NFA already deducted) identical “calculated repair costs” again 40,- € “deduction new for old”. The car was never with an expert of the insurer. In the case of an almost four-digit amount, the cost of repair differs by only €2.- €. I could live with it. But why is the deduction calculated twice? And when is such a deduction appropriate? I found an explanation in the net. Quotation: The paint in the damage area is ten years old, but intact. Because there was no reason for the victim to repaint or repaint, he has no measurable and timely advantage due to the damage-related painting. ür-alt-deduction is not justified. I now had no reason for a corresponding repainting or repainting up to the case of damage. Is it a calculation error of the insurer or a mental/understanding error with me? Or both?