During a traffic collision, the victim's car is damaged. At the time of the exclusion of the anticipation of utilizing the vehicle, the injured individual may require a replacement car insurer. How long should the lease last? Is this affected by the classification of injury as complete or partial? What is the relation between the technological repair time and the reasonable rental length? The following article will answer all these questions.
When you request a replacement car
The work to supply a replacement vehicle or the reimbursement of the funds incurred for this intent by the injured organization shall lie with the insurer of the offender. The condition is that the damaged car is utilized to meet communication needs, e.g. to get to work or to a doctor, although courts agree that the possession of a vehicle present is already standard alternatively than luxury. Even occasional usage of the vehicle is simply a justification for the replacement rental and liability in this regard. This is not the case if the victim has respective cars he uses on his own (they are not the vehicles of a spouse or children). At that time, communication needs, for the repair of the damaged car, are considered to be met by the usage of another vehicle owned.
The case-law assumes that liability of the insurer for the costs of renting a replacement vehicle arises erstwhile they are actually incurred by the injured organization or another entity on the basis of the assignment of claims. The reimbursement is so made erstwhile the injured individual has actually utilized a replacement car and will supply evidence for that, in the form of a contract or invoice. So you can't a priori assume that, due to the damage, the insurer's work to refund the rental of a replacement vehicle shall automatically appear. This is the case erstwhile the victim shows the implementation of the earlier lease.
The ultimate Court's resolution of 17 November 2011, II CZP 5/11, OSNC 2012/3/28 should be recalled here: However, as regards the rental costs of the replacement vehicle, it is indicated that in the case of expenditure relating to the rental of a replacement vehicle, only the expenditure actually incurred may be reimbursed, since in the case of the rental of a replacement vehicle, the failure of property arises only erstwhile the cost of that rental is incurred.
In fresh years, it is common practice among insurers to propose a replacement vehicle as early as erstwhile the harm was reported. The individual liable for the harm then places a car on the injured individual who can benefit from it at the time of the damage. However, it should be remembered that if the insurer considers that the repair is taking besides long, the replacement vehicle will be picked up before the damaged car is restored to its pre-injury condition. In July 2022, the Financial Supervision Commission issued recommendations on the elimination of harm from motor insurance. advice 22 indicated: A liability insurance undertaking under an OC insurance agreement of vehicle holders for harm to the vehicle may propose the hire of a replacement vehicle for repair of the damaged vehicle or the time essential to acquisition another vehicle. According to the following sub-paragraphs, the proposed rental should be specific, contain information on the prescribed period of usage of the car, the class of the vehicle should be appropriately selected for the damaged car, and the service itself should not unduly disorganise the everyday life of the authorised person. It is peculiarly crucial that the injured organization does not gotta benefit from the insurer's proposal, but the rental rates offered are usually more favourable than those available on the market, which translates into making the work to minimise the damage.
How many days should take reasonable time to rent a replacement vehicle – general rule
A general answer to this question can be found in the resolution of the ultimate Court (signature III CZP 5/11), where it is indicated that the expenditure on the rental of a replacement vehicle should be deliberate and economical. This is, as you can see, a very general position, which leaves a wide field of interpretation, both to general courts, insurers and victims. In fresh years, however, a reasonably uniform case law has developed on this issue, which will be discussed below. The reasonable period of hiring a replacement vehicle depends, among another things, on the harm classification performed by the insurer. If the repair costs exceed the value of the car before the damage, there is full damage, then the payment shall be the difference between the value of the vehicle before and after the damage. On the another hand, if the repair costs do not exceed the value of the car before the injury, there is partial damage. In specified a situation, the insurer pays the funds needed to repair the vehicle. However, it must be borne in head that this is only a classification of damage, so the victim, if he wishes, can, of course, repair the vehicle after the full damage.
It is besides worth quoting the position of the ultimate Court, which in its judgement of 5 November 2004 (Event II CK 494/03) indicated that rental costs may include only period essential and essential to repair the damaged vehicleif the vehicle was suitable for repair as a consequence of the acquisition of a fresh part and its fitting to the car. Therefore, specified costs cannot be extended to the full actual repair period of the car.
The Court of First Instance so demarcated the actual recovery time from that which is legitimate — usually determined by an expert — i.e. the 1 for which the insurer is responsible. For example, hold in reporting harm or hold in repairing the workshop was excluded from the work of the latter.
Total damage
According to the guidelines of the Polish Insurance Association, the replacement rent, erstwhile the harm was classified by the insurer as total, is the period from the date of its inception until the date of notification of the classification of the harm as full and then the additional period essential to get the fresh vehicle. This time should usually not exceed 7 days, but there may be situations where it will should be prolonged.
It is worth remembering that these guidelines do not follow judicial case law. The ultimate Court has unequivocally confirmed that rental time should include the period essential to get a fresh vehicle (Event No III CZP 76/13). Earlier, the ultimate Court felt that this time could be maximum until compensation was paid, but it was right to depart from this view. The courts so mostly presume that the anticipation of acquiring a fresh vehicle arises only after compensation has been paid. Only then does the victim have the means to get a fresh car. At the same time, the injured individual does not gotta credit the insurer with his own funds by buying the car before receiving compensation. In practice, this means that the reasonable rental time should cover the period from the date of the harm to the date of the compensation and an additional 7 days. (unless you can buy the car earlier). In the vast majority of litigation, this last solution (7 days after payment of compensation) is considered justified.
However, it should be remembered that the said 7 days is only a suggestion. In practice, there may be situations where buying a fresh car at this time will be impossible. For example, if the car to be bought has not yet been produced or its introduction causes difficulties. On the another hand, it may turn out that the injured individual bought the car before, for example, before or after compensation. Then the reasonable rental time will be counted to the date of purchase. Due to the anticipation of gathering the communication needs of your own recently acquired vehicle, the liability of the insurer will expire.
Partial injury
In case of partial damage, the Polish Insurance Association divided the rental time into individual partial periods:
- the period from the date of the injury to the date of its notification. A maximum of 3 days shall be taken as a typical period. A longer hold requires adequate justification. For example, a situation where it was impossible to identify the insurer liable for the incidental or hold was caused by irregularities on the part of the insurer;
- the period from the date on which the harm was reported to the date on which the typical of the insurer inspected the vehicle and the injured individual received the repair;
- technological repair time, calculated on the basis of time units from the repair cost;
- the period of waiting for any additional examination, if, for example, additional harm has occurred after the part has been dismantled;
- the organisational period for uncovering the repair workshop, repair order, acceptance/reception of the vehicle, as standard, shall be adopted for a full of up to 2 days;
- the waiting period for spare parts – within a maximum of 2 days.
However, the above guidelines are simply a pattern of conduct which is rather importantly modified by both insurers and general courts. 3 key issues affecting the (essential) repair time are the vehicle's handling after the damage, the technological repair time and inspecting with the acquisition of spare parts.
- Vehicle compatibility
For insurers, the crucial information is whether the car was after the road damage, and so whether the harm was sufficiently harmless that the vehicle left the scene without the aid of a tow truck and whether between the harm and the start of repairs could be used. In practice, the harm is usually those scratches of a bumper or body parts that subtract only aesthetic qualities from the vehicle. However, erstwhile a lamp lamp lamp has been broken, erstwhile sharp edges of sheet metallic or plastic have appeared, and apparent erstwhile the harm excluded the physical mobility of the vehicle, the car becomes non-mobile. Therefore, the exemption from movement may be legal (it would not be allowed to decision due to, for example, a defective headlamp) or physical, i.e. that the engine or the driving strategy is malfunctioning.
If the car after the harm is mobile, insurers, as well as usually experts and courts, stand at the position that the replacement rent should only last as many days as it takes to repair itself (technical repair time) plus 1-2 days to receive the car from the service. In this situation, it is assumed that all pre-repair activities, specified as harm reporting, inspecting or ordering parts, should be performed at the same time as the injured individual uses the damaged car. Therefore, the vehicle should be delivered to the service at the prescribed time, where inspections should be made, and the victim should proceed to usage his vehicle. During this time, the workshop is obliged to order spare parts and after receiving them call the injured individual to appear in the service for repairs. It is only after that day that the replacement lease starts, which should be completed with the pickup of the car from the workshop.
In its judgement of 31 October 2017, the territory Court of Warsaw referred to the following: The territory Court, in principle, agrees and accepts the arguments put forward in the applicant’s plea that the service should immediately after inspecting the damaged car and paper its damage. [...] The complainant’s view that it is absolutely unnecessary to wait until the insurer’s final acceptance of the repair costs [...] . The same position was taken by the territory Court of Warsaw in its judgement of 9 January 2018 in Case No. 21II Ga 1053/17, in its judgement of 11 January 2018, in its judgement of 21 January 2018, in its decision of 21 January 2018, in its judgement of 16 October 2015, in its decision of 21 January 2015 in its decision of 1419/15.
It is natural that individual cases should be considered, based on the circumstantial circumstances of the case. It may so be the case that the rental period of the replacement vehicle will be limited only to the technological period of repair (in the case of its mobility). However, the insurer should not apply specified an presumption without mention and reduce the rent compensation for the replacement vehicle without careful analysis of the facts of the case. This was explicitly pointed out by the ultimate Court in its resolution of 17.11.2011 (file number: III CZP 05/11). It should be borne in head that the injured individual should be compensated for the harm resulting from the average causal link with the accident itself. Therefore, if the insurer has unduly extended the procedure, i.e. delaying the examination or the calculation of the repair costs, he is obliged to cover the rent of the replacement vehicle for a period during which a damaged motor vehicle in normal, typical situation could be repaired, taking into account the actions of the injury elimination process.
The insurer may so be required to pay compensation to the injured organization for the rental of the replacement vehicle, covering not only the technological repair time, but its actual time and the period essential to find the overall liability of the insurer, including, above all, the degree of the harm to the vehicle. A longer reasonable period of rental of a replacement vehicle usually arises erstwhile the vehicle remains inaccessible after the injury. Then the victim cannot usage his car from the minute of the harm until he is taken from the workshop. This period will include: harm report, repair calculation, acceptance by the insurer, order and transportation of parts, as well as, of course, repair itself.
- Technological repair time
The method repair time shall cover only the activities included in the time units included in the applicable cost estimates. If the calculation shows that the repair should take 32 hours, then a simple mathematical action indicates that it will be 4 full days (in the presumption of an eight-hour day of work of a mechanic/laker). However, by this time, the courts have counted breaks in work, washing the vehicle, its passages to different positions, as well as the coefficient of time 0.6, 0,7 or 0.8. The second is linked to the presumption that additional difficulties usually arise erstwhile repairing the car, specified as fried screws. In specified a case, returning to a 32-hour example, the repair includes, about 2 consecutive days, obtaining a full of 6. The experts, and behind them courts presume that on weekends the workshops do not work (even erstwhile the beginning information is visible on Saturday). So up to 6 days should be added to the weekend. In this way, real since technological repair times can vary even twice.
- Inspection with acquisition of spare parts
In case of vehicle incompatibility, it is besides crucial to inspect the vehicle and order spare parts. These activities are usually carried out by a workshop which sends its calculation to the insurer. This 1 accepts her or sends her comments. The exchange of letters aimed at reaching a common position may take respective twelve days. It besides happens that the insurer disagrees with the calculation of the workshop and his opinion, despite the pressure, does not change. Then the service performs repairs, only according to its assumptions. There are besides situations in which the insurer inspects himself through his expert. However, it usually takes respective days to wait for him to arrive. All this time is then determined by courts as definitely rational.
Also in the event of vehicle incompatibility, the time to order and the supply of spare parts shall be considered as a reasonable partial period. The Polish Insurance Association considered that it was 2 days, but erstwhile the workshop proves that it was not his responsibility that it lasted longer, the liability of the insurer besides covers another day. In the case of popular brands specified as Ford, Skoda or Opel with their magazines in Poland, the two-day word is usually maintained. There are uncommon cars, however, in American or nipponese versions, parts of which are delivered from another continents. Then from the order to choice up the component of the vehicle, it may be over a month. This time besides burdens the insurer.
120 days rent
Of course, these principles can vary depending on the circumstances of the case. Attention should be paid to the case hung before the Sieradz territory Court (file mention I Ca 340/17), in which it was considered a legitimate lease covering as much as 120 days. According to the court, the hold in the insurer’s activities required specified a long hiring of a replacement vehicle. This entity was incapable to supply clear information to the injured organization on the qualification of the harm and then delayed the payment of compensation. In the absence of the essential resources to get a fresh car or repair a damaged car, she was forced to rent a replacement vehicle throughout that period.
A reasonable rental period can extend in utmost cases up to respective years. This happens erstwhile the insurer fails to recognise its work and the case is referred to the competent court. If, during the process, the lease is carried out and the insurer is considered responsible, then the reasonable rent may take respective 100 days.
In conclusion, the reasonable rental period should be considered in the category of rationality and so be an effort to find how long average repair should proceed under typical average conditions. It remains crucial to specify the obligations of the insurer, the injured individual and the repair workshop, which should, on the 1 hand, aim at full resolution of the harm and, on the another hand, to minimise it.
