Dual liability is still a problem
Interview with Alexandra Viktorova, Insurance Ombudsman.
In the report on the activities of the Insurance Commissioner for the first half of the year we read that over 50 percent of complaints relate to auto insurance, most of which are related to compulsory third party liability insurance.
What disadvantages do drivers complain about?
– In 2011, the Office of the Insurance Ombudsman received more than 14 thousand written complaints in individual cases in the field of business insurance, and in the first half of this year there were 7443 XNUMX. Indeed, more than half of them relate to auto insurance - mainly compulsory civil liability insurance of vehicle owners and voluntary auto insurance. car insurance.
Insurers most often complain about the so-called. dual liability insurance, the insurance company's call for payment of premiums resulting from the recalculation, as well as overdue premiums, as well as problems with obtaining a refund of the unused part of the premium after the sale of the vehicle.
On the other hand, persons claiming compensation from insurers indicate in their complaints full or partial refusal to pay compensation, delay in liquidation proceedings, difficulties in providing access to materials on compensation for damage, insufficient information about the documents required in connection with the liquidated claim, and unreliable substantiation by insurers of their positions both on refusal and on the amount of compensation. The problems reported relate, among others, to the unauthorized classification of vehicle damage as total, even if the cost of repairs did not exceed its market value, underestimation of the value of the vehicle in the state before damage and overestimation of the cost of accidents, the amount of compensation in case of personal injury, reimbursement of rental costs replacement vehicle, the right of the victim to decide on the choice of the type of parts used to repair the vehicle, the legitimacy of the use of wear parts by insurers, issues of compensation for the loss of commercial value of the vehicle, requiring the presentation of primary invoices indicating the type and source of purchase of spare parts, reduced rates for body work and paint, and excluding VAT as part of the compensation.
See also: End of double claims. Guide
Insurance companies are still using cheap substitutes to clear losses. How does the press secretary look at it?
– In the case of third party liability insurance, the insurance company is subject to the full indemnity rule arising from the Civil Code. As a rule, the injured party has the right to restore the damaged item to its previous state, i.e. The repair of the car must be carried out in accordance with the technology provided by its manufacturer, in a way that guarantees the safety and proper quality of its subsequent operation. Thus, the view, which is dominant in the case law of the courts of general jurisdiction, should be supported, that the injured party has the right to claim compensation based on the prices of original parts from the vehicle manufacturer, if such parts were damaged and this is necessary. replace them. However, the cost of repairing a vehicle may not exceed its market value before the damage, and such repairs must not result in the enrichment of the victim.
Good to know: Who is a replacement car for??
The question of how to determine the amount of compensation for damage to a vehicle claimed under compulsory civil liability insurance is also related to the question of whether the insurer can reduce the prices of spare parts used to repair a damaged car. vehicle due to its age, which in practice is called depreciation. The Supreme Court, in response to my request, ruled in this case on April 12, 2012 (No. III ChZP 80/11) that the insurance company is obliged, at the request of the victim, to pay compensation covering the deliberate and economically justified costs of new parts and materials to repair a damaged vehicle, and only if the insurer proves that this will lead to an increase in the value of the vehicle, the indemnity may be reduced by an amount corresponding to this increase. In support of the ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that the applicable provisions did not provide grounds for reducing compensation for the difference between the value of the new part and the value of the damaged part. The injured party has the right to expect to receive from the insurer an amount covering the cost of new parts, the installation of which is necessary to restore the vehicle to the state in which it was before the damage was caused.
It is quite common for insurers to complain about dishonest actions in case of total loss. Insurers pay compensation minus the cost of a seriously damaged car, an accident. Do you think that insurers should take a “tested” car and pay full compensation? There are also security issues. Almost all vehicles recognized by insurers as completely lost are returned to the roads. Are these correct practices?
– With regard to liability insurance, a total loss of a vehicle occurs when it is damaged to such an extent that it cannot be repaired, or its value exceeds the value of the vehicle before the collision. The amount of compensation is the amount corresponding to the difference in the value of the car before and after the accident. The insurer is obliged to reliably determine the amount of indemnity and pay the corresponding amount. This may or may not help the injured party find a buyer for their car. Changing the law so that ownership of a damaged vehicle passes to the insurer by virtue of the act itself would be the wrong decision, if only because of the far-reaching interference with constitutionally protected property rights, but also because of the frequent disputes about whether this the loss should be qualified as total, and to the doubts of the injured parties about the correctness of the estimates prepared by the insurer.
See also: Problems with the estimator
It is worth recalling that, according to the current rules, the owner of the vehicle, in which the elements of the carrier, brake or steering system were repaired, which arose as a result of an event covered by a motor insurance contract or third party liability insurance, is obliged to conduct an additional technical examination, followed by informing about this fact insurance company. The strict application of this provision would prevent the return to the roads of those vehicles that have been in an accident, the poor technical condition of which poses a threat to road safety.
What to look for when choosing an offer of civil liability insurance for vehicle owners, the so-called. Auto liability insurance?
– The principles of concluding compulsory third party liability insurance of motor vehicle owners and the scope of this insurance are regulated by the Compulsory Insurance Law. Therefore, regardless of which insurance company the vehicle owner decides, he will receive the same insurance coverage. Thus, it would seem that the only criterion that differentiates the offer of individual insurers is the price, that is, the size of the premium. However, some insurance companies offer an additional amount of protection as a bonus to compulsory insurance, such as assistance insurance. In addition, the practice of executing contracts by individual insurers may differ from each other, and a low premium, unfortunately, is not always combined with a high quality of service. Periodic reports that I publish show that the number of complaints filed against some insurance companies far exceeds their market share. These complaints concern not only the underestimation of damages due to the fault of the victim, but also problems with the termination of the contract or disputes over the amount of the premium. Therefore, when choosing an insurer, it is worth considering not only the price of insurance, but also the reputation of the insurance company or the opinion of more experienced acquaintances in this regard.
What is the procedure for filing a complaint with the insurance ombudsman?
– The insurance ombudsman represents the interests of policyholders, insured persons, beneficiaries or beneficiaries under insurance contracts, members of pension funds, participants in professional pension programs and persons receiving capital pensions or their beneficiaries. These people have the opportunity to contact me with a complaint about their case. For intervention, it is necessary to send a written complaint to the office of the insurance ombudsman at the address: st. Jerusalem 44, 00-024 Warsaw. The complaint must include your details, the legal entity to which the claim relates, the insurance or policy number, and a summary of the facts relevant to the case, as well as the claims against the insurer and arguments supporting your position. . You must also set expectations about how the case will be handled, i.e. whether it will be an intervention in the insurance company's affairs or just an expression of a position on the case. The complaint should be accompanied by a photocopy of the correspondence with the insurance company and other relevant documents. If the applicant is acting on behalf of another person, a power of attorney authorizing him to represent that person must also be attached.
The Ombudsman's Office also provides free information and advice over the phone and in response to e-mail inquiries. Additional information on this issue can be found on the website www.rzu.gov.pl.
Last year, at the request of a spokesman, the Supreme Court ruled that a replacement car be rented to the victims. What is the result of this?
– In a ruling dated November 17, 2011 (ref. No. III CHZP 05/11 – ed. note), the Supreme Court confirmed that in third-party liability insurance, the insurer’s liability for damage to or destruction of a motor vehicle not used for official purposes, covers intentional and economically justified expenses for the rental of a replacement vehicle, but not dependent on the inability of the victim to use public transport. So the point of renting a replacement car is not only to run a business, as insurance companies have previously claimed, but also to use it to carry out day-to-day activities. The Court also shared our view that reimbursement for the cost of replacing a vehicle cannot be made conditional on whether the injured party proves that he cannot use public transport or is uncomfortable using it. According to the Supreme Court, hiring a replacement car is not justified if the injured party owns another free and usable car, or does not intend to use it by renting a replacement car, or did not use it during the repair period. It should also be remembered that the rented car must be of the same class as the damaged car, and the rental rates must correspond to the actual rates in the local market.
