The insurer has paid out compensation, but the amount is clearly insufficient. This is a common situation – and it is not final. The injured party has a range of legal tools to effectively challenge an undervalued assessment and obtain full compensation.
Why Insurers Undervalue Payouts
Insurers operate under cost pressure and use a number of practices that lead to reduced payouts. For property damage (vehicle damage) the most common methods are: using non-original replacement parts in the repair estimate rather than genuine parts, applying labour rates below the market rate, overlooking certain damage or classifying it as pre-existing, and applying excessive depreciation to older vehicles.
For personal injury claims, insurers frequently: offer a token non-material damages award disproportionate to the extent of the harm suffered, dispute the causal link between the accident and certain complaints, fail to account for all medical and rehabilitation costs, and refuse to award an annuity for permanent injury.
Step One – Analysing the Insurer’s Decision
Before taking any action it is worth carefully analysing the insurer’s decision: what was included, what was overlooked and what valuation method was used. For property damage – compare the estimate with quotes from authorised workshops and the prices of genuine parts. For personal injury – compare the amount awarded with court judgments in similar cases.
The insurer is required to justify any decision to refuse or limit a benefit (Article 16 of the Compulsory Insurance Act). Where the justification is brief or unconvincing, that is already a basis for an appeal.
Step Two – An Appeal to the Insurer
The first formal step is to submit an appeal through the insurer’s internal complaints procedure. The appeal should include: a precise indication of what you disagree with and why, your own valuation of the loss (an independent expert’s report, medical invoices, medical records) and a claim for a specific amount with supporting reasoning.
The insurer has 30 days to deal with the complaint (under the Act on the Handling of Complaints by Financial Market Entities). In complex cases – 60 days.
An internal appeal is worthwhile and can be effective – particularly where you are able to demonstrate specific errors in the valuation.
Step Three – The Financial Ombudsman
Where the appeal to the insurer produces no result, the next step is a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman. The Ombudsman conducts an intervention procedure (free of charge) and can call on the insurer to change its position. Mediation proceedings are also available.
Proceedings before the Financial Ombudsman are free for the injured party and frequently result in a settlement. Initiating them does not close the door to court proceedings.
Step Four – Court Proceedings
A civil claim against the insurer is the most effective tool – but also the most time-consuming. The court independently assesses the extent of the loss on the basis of an expert’s opinion and may award an amount higher than that offered by the insurer.
Several important points apply when pursuing compensation through the courts.
Interest for late payment. The insurer is in default from the day on which it should have paid the compensation (30 or 90 days from the claim being reported), not from the date of the judgment. Interest accruing during lengthy proceedings can represent a significant sum.
Costs. Where the claim succeeds, the insurer bears the court costs and the costs of legal representation.
The court-appointed expert. In property damage cases the court appoints an automotive engineering expert who prepares an independent repair valuation. In personal injury cases – a medical expert or rehabilitation specialist.
Specific Types of Undervaluation – How to Argue
An estimate based on non-original parts instead of genuine ones. For vehicles up to three years old, the insurer should as a rule account for genuine parts. For older vehicles it depends on the vehicle’s condition before the damage. Where the vehicle was serviced exclusively at an authorised service centre using genuine parts, replacing them with non-original alternatives reduces the repair value and is open to challenge.
A total loss assessed at below market value. The insurer values the vehicle below its actual market value. A comparison with current sale listings for similar vehicles and an expert’s opinion are effective arguments.
An undervalued non-material damages award. Polish court practice has developed relatively substantial awards for permanent injury, chronic pain and lasting restrictions on daily activities. An analysis of comparable cases from court judgment databases (for example the Common Courts Judgment Portal) can demonstrate that the amount offered falls below the standard.
Refusal of an annuity. Where there is permanent injury or increased needs resulting from the accident, the injured party is entitled to an annuity (Article 444 § 2 of the Civil Code). A refusal to award one or an undervalued annuity can be challenged.
An Independent Expert Report as the Foundation of the Claim
An independent automotive expert report (for property damage) or a specialist medical opinion (for personal injury) is the key piece of evidence in a dispute with an insurer. Its cost can subsequently be claimed from the insurer as part of the loss.
Contact Us
If the insurer has paid out an undervalued amount or has refused to pay, it is worth discussing the matter with a lawyer – before lodging an appeal or deciding on the course of action.
It pays to be properly prepared: both in knowing what you can claim and in having a clear strategy.
We handle cases for drivers in Poznań and across the Wielkopolska region, with in-person and online consultations available for clients elsewhere in Poland.
Adwokat Marta Krzyżanowicz and Adwokat Michalina Koligot Law Firm “Adwokat dla Kierowców w Poznaniu” ul. Adama Mickiewicza 18/3, 60-834 Poznań tel. +48 795 001 536 · +48 531 335 713 kontakt@adwokatdlakierowcy.pl · www.adwokatdlakierowcy.pl
This text is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case requires individual analysis.
