Comprehensive Insurance (AC) Claims – When the Insurer Undervalues Your Payout and What to Do About It
Comprehensive insurance is a policy you pay a substantial premium for – often only to be told, when you make a claim, that you will receive half of what you expected. Undervalued repair estimates, non-original parts, depreciation buried in the small print of the policy terms – this is the everyday reality of AC insurance claims. Our firm regularly handles cases of this kind before courts in Poznań and Wielkopolska, recovering for clients amounts significantly higher than those initially offered by insurers.
Contents
- What AC insurance is and how it differs from third-party liability cover
- What comprehensive insurance covers
- How insurers undervalue AC payouts
- When an insurer refuses to pay – and whether they are right to do so
- A practical example from our caseload
- What to do when a payout is undervalued or refused
- Frequently asked questions
What AC Insurance Is and How It Differs from Third-Party Liability Cover
Comprehensive insurance is a voluntary property insurance policy protecting the vehicle owner – as distinct from compulsory third-party liability cover, which protects other road users from the consequences of your actions. This distinction has fundamental legal significance: the scope of third-party liability cover is set by statute and cannot be freely modified by the insurer, whereas the scope of AC cover is determined by the insurance contract and the General Terms and Conditions of Insurance. This means that in AC cases, the specific wording of the policy is critical – and analysing it is the first step in every claim of this kind.
What Comprehensive Insurance Covers
Standard AC cover includes damage to the vehicle resulting from a collision or accident – including one caused by the insured driver – theft of the vehicle or its parts, damage caused by natural forces such as hail, flooding or lightning, fire and explosion, and acts of vandalism. The specific scope of cover depends, however, on the policy variant and its individual terms. In practice, what matters most is not the general provisions but the exclusions from cover and the obligations placed on the insured – these are the provisions insurers most frequently use as grounds for refusing or reducing a payout.
How Insurers Undervalue AC Payouts
Experience from our practice shows that AC payouts are undervalued in several recurring ways. In vehicle repair cases, insurers apply hourly labour rates well below those charged by authorised service centres – in Poznań and the surrounding area, the difference between the rate imposed by the insurer and the actual rate at an authorised dealer can exceed PLN 100 per hour. Added to this is the imposition of non-original replacement parts instead of originals, the classification of components as repairable rather than requiring replacement, and the application of depreciation to parts – despite many policies providing no basis for this.
A client came to the firm with an insurer’s repair estimate of PLN 12,500 for a two-year-old BMW. The actual cost of repair at an authorised service centre was PLN 28,700. The difference resulted from a combination of undervalued labour rates and non-original parts – both applied simultaneously.
When an Insurer Refuses to Pay – and Whether They Are Right to Do So
An outright refusal to pay under AC cover is less common than undervaluation, but it is also successfully challenged before courts. The most frequent grounds for refusal are the absence of an anti-theft device declared at the time the policy was taken out, the absence of a second set of keys, an allegation of gross negligence – such as leaving keys in the vehicle – or providing inaccurate circumstances of the incident.
Each of these grounds can and should be scrutinised. Refusal decisions are sometimes issued on a formulaic basis, without a genuine analysis of the specific facts. In cases handled by the firm before courts in Poznań, Gniezno and Konin, courts have on numerous occasions found in favour of clients, rejecting the grounds for refusal put forward by insurers.
A Practical Example from Our Caseload
A client received an AC payout of PLN 22,000 for the repair of an Audi A6. The actual cost of repair at an authorised service centre was PLN 41,500. The insurer had applied a labour rate of PLN 110 per hour, while rates at Poznań authorised dealers ranged from PLN 210 to PLN 250, had imposed the use of non-original parts, and had incorrectly assessed the scope of necessary repairs.
Following the filing of a claim at the District Court in Poznań, the court awarded the outstanding amount together with interest and costs. In its reasoning, the court noted that for a premium vehicle the use of non-original parts is unjustified, and that hourly labour rates must reflect local market conditions.
What to Do When a Payout Is Undervalued or Refused
The first step is to obtain a repair estimate from an authorised service centre or an independent automotive expert – this is the key document for assessing the extent of the undervaluation. The next step is to submit a written complaint to the insurer, identifying specific objections to the way the loss has been calculated and setting out the amount claimed. The insurer is required to consider the complaint within 30 days, or in particularly complex cases within 60 days, under the Act on the handling of complaints by financial market entities.
If the complaint does not produce a result, the next step is either a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman or court proceedings. Experience from our practice shows that the mere filing of a claim by a lawyer prompts insurers to reconsider their position and propose a settlement – particularly where the undervaluation is substantial and difficult to defend.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I choose which workshop repairs my car? Yes. The insurer may indicate its partner workshops, but cannot effectively compel you to use only those. You have the right to have your vehicle repaired at a workshop of your choosing, including an authorised service centre.
Can the insurer insist on non-original parts? This depends on the policy terms. In court practice – particularly in cases involving newer vehicles and premium cars – courts in Wielkopolska have on numerous occasions held that the use of alternative parts is contrary to the insured’s interests where the vehicle was fitted with original parts before the damage occurred.
How long do I have to report an AC claim? The deadline is set by the insurance contract – most commonly between two and seven days from the incident or from obtaining knowledge of the damage. Failure to meet the deadline may be grounds for refusal if the delay affected the ability to establish the circumstances of the incident. It is worth noting, however, that exceeding the deadline does not automatically release the insurer from liability.
The insurer has applied depreciation to parts – is this lawful? Only if it is expressly provided for in the policy or the General Terms and Conditions. If there is no such provision, the depreciation is unjustified and can be successfully challenged.
Contact Us
If the insurer has paid an undervalued AC claim or refused to pay altogether, it is worth seeking legal advice to assess the prospects of recovering the full amount.
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.