The Supreme Court is to decide to what extent the car owner should cooperate with the insurance company. Cited in the context of discounts and discounts for car parts. This issue arose during the settlement of claims of a car accident damage from motor third party liability insurance.
Compensation with a discount
The insurer paid out 2200 PLN following a direct settlement of the claim. The insurance company followed its own cost estimate for restoring the car to the state it was in before the accident. He took into account 30 percent discount on original parts and 60 percent discount on paint materials.
By providing information on the calculated compensation, the insurer informed about the possibility of purchasing original parts and paint materials with the above discount, after reporting such a need. However, the victim did not repair the car. A few months later he sold his insurance claims to a debt collection company. The company sued the insurance company, demanding payment for incomplete compensation for the damage – 5800 PLN based on a privately commissioned calculation.
The District Court awarded only part of the requested amount as it took into account the discounts. It also indicated that the victim had been duly informed about the possibility of purchasing parts and materials for repair at a discount. Having this knowledge, he should take advantage of this opportunity to prevent the damage from worsening. In this way, he would have performed the following from Art. 362 of the Civil Code, the obligation to cooperate with the defendant in redressing the damage. As a consequence, the SR awarded only 2200 PLN. In response, the debt collection company filed an appeal, in which it alleged that the District Court unjustifiably reduced the compensation by potential discounts. In his opinion, this is a matter between the seller of repair materials and the buyer – repairing the damage. At the same time, they do not affect the claims of the injured party and the buyer of his claim.
Considering the appeal of the District Court in Warsaw, he asked the Supreme Court to decide the issue in question. Currently, there is no uniform line of jurisprudence on this issue.
What solutions might there be?
In justifying the question, the court indicated possible answers. The first is the same as in the case of expenses for renting a replacement vehicle. According to the position of the Supreme Court – „costs incurred by the injured party in excess of those proposed by the insurer are covered by third party liability insurance, if their incurring was deliberate and economically justified” – resolution III CZP 20/17. On the other hand, another answer comes down to the fact that since the injured party refused to comply with the insurer’s proposals agreed with the supplier of parts – materials, then such refusal may not automatically mean that the injured party breaches the obligation to minimize the damage.
