Double Reasonableness Test in Personal Injury for Amsterdam Residents
The double reasonableness test is an essential legal criterion in Dutch personal injury law, specifically for the reimbursement of extrajudicial costs (BGK). For Amsterdam residents, where many injury claims arise from bike accidents on busy canal paths or tram incidents, this test assesses whether costs are reasonable relative to the damage and the settlement. This prevents excessive billing and ensures fair handling of claims in the region.
What Does the Double Reasonableness Test Mean for Amsterdam?
For extrajudicial costs (BGK), such as attorney fees or expert reports before court proceedings, the double reasonableness test plays a key role. Developed by the Supreme Court, it evaluates two aspects: reasonableness relative to the damage and to the settlement. This article, building on our overview of BGK, is tailored specifically for Amsterdam residents with personal injury from traffic congestion or medical errors.
The test protects insurers from unreasonable payments, while ensuring Amsterdam victims receive fair compensation for their legal efforts, often necessary in complex urban accidents.
Legal Basis of the Double Reasonableness Test
This test is based on Article 6:96(2) of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC), which compensates reasonable out-of-court costs. The Supreme Court elaborated on this in the Posnanski ruling (ECLI:NL:HR:2003:AF7096). Cases at the District Court of Amsterdam are regularly assessed under this standard.
The two conditions are:
- Reasonableness relative to the damage: Costs must be proportionate. For an Amsterdam bike claim of €5,000, €10,000 in attorney fees is unreasonable.
- Reasonableness relative to the settlement: Costs must align with the efforts required. Simple negotiations do not justify extensive expert reports.
Jurisprudence such as Van der Wiel (ECLI:NL:HR:2015:2594) clarifies that the assessment is objective, taking into account case complexity and Amsterdam rates.
The Two Components Explained for Local Claims
First Component: Reasonableness Relative to the Damage
Here, BGK is compared to the total compensation. Roughly, it may not exceed 25-30%. For non-pecuniary damage like pain and suffering, this is more flexible.
Amsterdam example: After a collision on the Amstel, you claim €20,000 (medical care and lost income). €6,000 in BGK is acceptable (within 30%). Not for €2,000 damage.
Second Component: Reasonableness Relative to the Settlement
The necessity of the work is central. Were the activities essential for the settlement at the District Court of Amsterdam?
Example: For a whiplash from a GVB tram accident, an expert report (€2,500) is justified for causation. Unnecessary correspondence is not, if the insurer agrees quickly.
Practical Cases from Amsterdam Personal Injury
Illustrations of the double reasonableness test in a local context:
- Bike Accident Near Central Station: Damage €10,000. €3,000 BGK for negotiations: compliant (30%, necessary). Full reimbursement.
- Medical Error at AMC Hospital: Damage €100,000. €25,000 for experts: reasonable due to complexity. Approved.
- Minor Fall on Dam Square: Damage €1,000. €4,000 in unnecessary costs: fails. Reimbursement max €500.
Disputes often end up at the District Court of Amsterdam or the sub-district court. The Juridisch Loket Amsterdam offers free initial assistance.
Rights and Obligations Under the Test
Victims may claim reasonable BGK but must moderate costs (Art. 6:96(2) DCC). Contact Juridisch Loket Amsterdam for advice.
- Rights:
- Full payment if the test is passed.
- Transparent cost breakdowns.
- Recourse at District Court of Amsterdam.
- Obligations:
- Substantiated invoices.
- No excesses.
- Prompt damage assessment.
Insurers must honor reasonable costs. In case of dispute: report to the Municipality of Amsterdam or Juridisch Loket.
| Aspect | Reasonable Amsterdam Example |
|---|