The Supreme Court has passed the resolution long awaited by the victims and the insurers on the issue of the rental fees for the replacement vehicle which are higher than those offered by the insurer in the case when the victim used the offer of other entity.

We wrote about this issue some time ago – link. Let us recall that this case was a base for presenting to the Supreme Court a legal issue which concerned a victim who rented a replacement car of the higher class than the car that was damaged. What is more, the victim refused to rent the replacement car offered by the insurer. The insurer refused to provide compensation in the amount exceeding the amount of rental used by the insurer.

In the Resolution of 24th August 2017 (file no. III CZP 20/17) the Supreme Court made the following statement:

The expenses for rental of the replacement vehicle incurred by the victim, exceeding the cost of using such vehicle proposed by the insurer, are covered by liability according to the contract of compulsory insurance of civil liability of the vehicle owners if they were incurred intentionally and reasonably in the matter of economy. 

It means that the victim who rented the replacement car at a price higher than this offered by the insurer has right to get the compensation of the higher amount on the condition that it was incurred intentionally and reasonably in a matter of economy.

Because of the evaluation of the justification of the intentional and reasonable economically criterion, for the probable influence on the situation of the victims and insurers we should wait until the appearance of the written statement on the act and the judgment of the common courts based on the act.

However we should note here that the market prices of the rental of replacement cars remain a significant issue in the act. Solely proving by the victim that the offer of the third party that he used was not different than the market rates may not be sufficient to agree that the cost incurred by the victim was valid and reasonable because the comparative criterion was the rate offered by the insurer.