You caused an accident without a valid driving licence, the insurer paid out compensation to the other party, and now it is sending you the bill. Do you have to pay? Not necessarily. Article 43(3) of the Compulsory Insurance Act gives insurers the right to seek recourse for driving without the required authorisation – but the scope of that liability is not absolute. Several effective lines of defence exist.
Contents
- What counts as driving without authorisation for recourse purposes
- Defence based on lack of causal link
- Defence based on necessity
- Challenging the alleged lack of authorisation
- Contributory negligence of the other party
- Limitation periods and procedural errors
- Negotiating with the insurer
- FAQ
What Counts as Driving Without Authorisation for Recourse Purposes
Article 43(3) of the Act of 22 May 2003 on Compulsory Insurance, the Insurance Guarantee Fund and the Polish Motor Insurers’ Bureau gives an insurer the right to claim back compensation it has paid out from a driver who did not hold the required authorisation to drive a motor vehicle.
Lack of authorisation is not limited to cases where the driver has never obtained a licence. It also covers driving with a licence that has been seized (for example, for exceeding the penalty point limit), driving after authorisation has been revoked (for example, following a conviction for drink driving), using a vehicle that requires a different licence category than the one held (for example, towing a trailer with a maximum authorised mass exceeding 750 kg without a B+E category), and driving on a licence that has lapsed because required medical examinations were not obtained.
A practical example: a client drove a car towing a trailer with a maximum authorised mass exceeding 750 kg, holding only a category B licence. After causing a collision, the insurer claimed back the compensation it had paid, relying on the absence of the correct licence category.
Defence Based on Lack of Causal Link
One of the most effective arguments in recourse cases for driving without a licence is the absence of a causal link between the lack of authorisation and the causing of the accident.
Recourse under Article 43 of the Act is exceptional and punitive in nature – its purpose is to sanction particularly egregious conduct by the driver. If the accident would have occurred in the same circumstances regardless of whether the driver held a valid licence – for example, because the other party forced right of way or violated the rules of the road – the argument of no causal link may prove effective.
A practical example: a client whose licence had been seized caused a collision because another driver cut in front of her. It was demonstrated in the proceedings that even an experienced, fully licensed driver would not have avoided the collision in the same conditions. The court dismissed the recourse claim.
Defence Based on Necessity
Polish civil and criminal law provide for the doctrine of necessity, which can exclude a driver’s liability where they acted to avert an immediate danger to a legally protected interest. If a driver operated a vehicle without a licence because they were saving someone’s life or health, they may have been acting under necessity – which can constitute an effective defence against a recourse claim.
A practical example: a client without a driving licence drove a neighbour showing signs of a heart attack to hospital. A collision occurred on the way. The court held that the driver had acted under necessity and dismissed the insurer’s claim.
This defence requires solid documentation: witness statements, medical records, footage or photographs confirming the circumstances of the incident. The more evidence there is of an immediate threat to life or health, the stronger the position in proceedings.
Challenging the Alleged Lack of Authorisation
Not every insurer’s assertion that a driver lacked authorisation is accurate. It is worth verifying whether the allegation is well-founded in the first place.
The licence may have been valid even if the driver did not have it on them at the time of the check. The decision to seize the licence may not yet have been final and effective at the time of the collision. A suspension may already have expired. The licence category may in fact have covered the vehicle in question, despite what the insurer claims.
A practical example: a client’s licence had been seized, but the administrative decision had not yet become final at the time of the collision. The insurer sought recourse, but the court held that at the time of the incident the driver formally held valid authorisation.
Contributory Negligence of the Other Party
If the other party to the collision also violated road traffic regulations and this contributed to the occurrence or extent of the damage, the court may take their contributory negligence into account when determining the scope of the unlicensed driver’s liability.
A practical example: a driver without a licence collided with a vehicle that had driven through a red light. The court found significant contributory negligence on the part of the other party and reduced the recourse amount proportionally.
An argument based on contributory negligence does not eliminate the recourse claim entirely, but can significantly reduce the amount sought.
Limitation Periods and Procedural Errors
Before taking any steps, it is worth checking whether the recourse claim has already become time-barred. Claims under Article 43 of the Act are subject to the general limitation periods under the Civil Code, which run from the date the insurer paid out the compensation. If the relevant period has elapsed, a limitation defence may be raised.
It is also worth verifying whether the insurer has evidence confirming the absence of authorisation at the time of the collision, whether it conducted the claims handling process correctly, and whether the amount sought in recourse corresponds to the compensation actually paid out.
Negotiating with the Insurer
Even where there are no grounds to avoid the recourse claim entirely, it is worth entering into negotiations with the insurer. In practice, it is possible to arrange payment by instalments, to reduce the amount claimed – particularly the interest component – or to reach a settlement for a sum lower than the amount originally demanded.
Insurers frequently weigh up the risk and cost of court proceedings. A settlement proposal backed by concrete legal arguments is often more effective than an outright refusal to engage.
FAQ
Does driving without a licence always lead to a recourse claim? No. The insurer has the right – not the obligation – to pursue recourse. There are also effective lines of defence: the absence of a causal link between the lack of authorisation and the accident, necessity, contributory negligence of the other party, procedural errors and limitation of the claim.
What should I do if I receive a demand for recourse payment? Do not ignore the letter, and do not admit to lacking a licence without first analysing the situation. It is advisable to consult a lawyer before responding to any demand from the insurer.
Can I defend myself on the basis that I was driving to help someone who was ill? Yes – if the circumstances amount to necessity, this can constitute an effective defence. The key is documenting the circumstances of the incident: witness statements, medical records and any available evidence confirming an immediate threat to life or health.
Can I negotiate with the insurer without going to court? Yes. An out-of-court settlement – covering a reduction in the amount, payment by instalments or a write-off of interest – is possible and is often in the interests of both parties.
Does the insurer have to prove that I lacked authorisation? Yes. The burden of proof in relation to the conditions for recourse lies with the insurer. It must demonstrate that at the time of the collision the driver did not hold the required authorisation.
Contact Us
An insurance recourse claim for driving without a licence is a serious financial consequence – but not always an unavoidable one.
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.
