Replacement Vehicle After an Accident – Who Is Entitled to One and for How Long
An accident or collision means more than a damaged car – it often means the sudden loss of the vehicle you use every day to get to work, take your children to school or run your business. The right to a replacement vehicle in these circumstances is a well-established standard confirmed by consistent Supreme Court case law. The problem is that insurers routinely challenge that standard – cutting the hire period short, imposing their own rates or refusing reimbursement altogether. Below we explain who is entitled to a replacement vehicle and on what terms.
Contents
- The legal basis for the right to a replacement vehicle
- Third-party liability claims – what you are entitled to
- Total loss – how long can you use a replacement vehicle
- Comprehensive insurance claims – do you have the right to a replacement vehicle
- How insurers restrict the right to a replacement vehicle
- Practical examples from our caseload
- Frequently asked questions
The Legal Basis for the Right to a Replacement Vehicle
The right to a replacement vehicle does not follow from a single statutory provision – it is grounded in the general principle of full compensation for loss set out in Article 361 § 2 of the Civil Code. That provision states that compensation covers both actual losses suffered and lost profits. The inability to use your own vehicle is a real loss which the at-fault party – and in practice their insurer – is obliged to make good.
The key authority is the Supreme Court resolution of 17 November 2011 (III CZP 5/11), in which the Supreme Court confirmed that an injured party may claim reimbursement of replacement vehicle hire costs regardless of whether the vehicle was used for commercial purposes. This right belongs to every injured party – whether they use the car to commute to work or exclusively for private purposes.
Third-Party Liability Claims – What You Are Entitled To
Under a third-party liability claim, you are entitled to a replacement vehicle for the entire period during which you cannot use your own car because it is being repaired. That period is defined by the technologically justified repair time – the time the workshop actually needs to restore the vehicle to its pre-accident condition. The insurer cannot reduce this to its own arbitrarily determined norms.
Importantly, reimbursement of hire costs is available regardless of whether you actually hired a replacement vehicle. If during the repair period you used a car borrowed from family or friends, you can claim compensation for the loss of use of your own vehicle. This is confirmed by the case law of the courts, though the amount of such a claim is assessed on a case-by-case basis.
The insurer may dispute the daily hire rate if it differs significantly from average market prices in the region. It cannot, however, insist on a specific hire company or refuse reimbursement simply because you did not use its partner network.
Total Loss – How Long Can You Use a Replacement Vehicle
In a total loss case under third-party liability insurance, the right to a replacement vehicle does not end when the insurer issues its decision. It continues until the injured party is realistically able to purchase a replacement vehicle – in practice, until the compensation is paid out and they are in a position to buy another car. This follows from the Supreme Court resolution of 22 November 2013 (III CZP 76/13).
Insurers routinely try to limit this period to a few days from the date of the total loss decision, arguing that the injured party “should have bought a new car by now.” This position is contrary to the Supreme Court resolution referred to above and is successfully challenged before courts.
Comprehensive Insurance Claims – Do You Have the Right to a Replacement Vehicle
Under your own comprehensive cover, the right to a replacement vehicle depends on the terms of the policy and the General Terms and Conditions. Some insurers include a replacement vehicle as part of the standard comprehensive cover; others offer it as a paid add-on. If you did not purchase this extension, the insurer is not obliged to provide a replacement vehicle under your comprehensive policy.
It is worth checking this before taking out cover – the cost of the extension is usually modest relative to the benefit it provides in the event of a claim.
How Insurers Restrict the Right to a Replacement Vehicle
The most common method of limiting reimbursement is to shorten the period recognised as justified. The insurer applies its own repair time norms – often significantly shorter than the time the workshop actually needed – and refuses reimbursement for any days beyond those norms. In cases where the repair took longer for objective reasons – waiting for parts, a queue at the workshop, additional damage discovered during dismantling – courts consistently side with injured parties.
A second common problem is disputing the daily rate. The insurer agrees to reimbursement only up to the rate set by its partner network, which is often well below market prices. If you used a regular hire company at market rates, you are entitled to reimbursement of the actual cost – provided the daily rate does not differ markedly from average prices in the region.
There are also outright refusals, where the insurer claims the injured party has not demonstrated a “need” for a replacement vehicle. Under the Supreme Court resolution of 2011, such a position is unfounded: the right to a replacement vehicle does not depend on demonstrating a specific purpose for which the car was needed.
Practical Examples from Our Caseload
A client came to the firm after a collision in which her vehicle required a repair lasting 28 days. The at-fault driver’s insurer agreed to reimburse replacement vehicle hire for only 10 days, citing its own time norms for that type of repair. The firm presented workshop documentation confirming that the additional time resulted from waiting for original replacement parts to be sourced. The District Court in Poznań awarded reimbursement of hire costs for the full repair period together with interest for late payment.
A second client, following a total loss, received a decision from the insurer stating that his entitlement to a replacement vehicle would expire seven days after the decision was issued. The compensation payment arrived 21 days after the decision, making it impossible to purchase another vehicle sooner. The firm successfully recovered hire costs for the full period – up to the date the compensation was credited to the client’s account.
Frequently Asked Questions
Am I entitled to a replacement vehicle if I only have one car? Yes – but the right to a replacement vehicle applies regardless of how many cars you own. What matters is that as a result of the accident you lost the use of a specific vehicle – and that is a loss which must be compensated.
The insurer wants me to use its hire partner – do I have to agree? No. You have the right to choose your own hire company. The insurer may indicate its partners, but cannot make reimbursement conditional on using only them. The condition is that the daily rate falls within the range of market prices in the region.
The insurer says I did not need a replacement vehicle because a family member has a car – is that right? No. The fact that a family member owns another vehicle does not deprive the injured party of the right to reimbursement of hire costs. It is your vehicle that was damaged and your loss that must be compensated.
Can I claim reimbursement if I borrowed a car from a friend rather than hiring one? Yes, though the claim takes a different form. Instead of reimbursement of hire costs, you can claim compensation for the loss of use of your own vehicle. The amount is assessed on the basis of market hire rates for a vehicle of a similar class during the relevant period.
How long can I use a replacement vehicle in a total loss case? Until you are realistically able to purchase a replacement vehicle – in practice, until the insurer pays out the compensation. This follows from the Supreme Court resolution of 22 November 2013 (III CZP 76/13).
Contact Us
A road traffic matter – whether it involves a fixed penalty notice, an accident, loss of a driving licence or a dispute with an insurer – can have serious professional and financial consequences.
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.