​Following accusations from carriers that the RCA changes proposed by the ASF will lead to higher prices, it is the turn of insurers to voice their displeasure. They argue that many injured drivers will no longer be able to receive money up front for repairs, and that unjustified suspensions or installments will create a breeding ground for abusive behavior that will eventually also be resolved by good drivers.

Insurers say it is worrying that some operational principles and technical aspects aimed at at least partially correcting a number of market imbalances that the industry has consistently pointed to over the past 5 years are not included in the amendments to the law, although they are also desired drivers.

Below are the main UNSAR-BAAR observations:

1. For example, the proposal for the introduction of average reference prices, which are practiced in the market of repair and rental of vehicles, respectively, with an informative, optional name, is not in the list of changes to the Law on RKA. Such a measure would be similar to the basic premium rates that exist for RCA insurance.

In fact, research conducted by IRES over the last 4 years on nationally representative samples clearly shows that Romanians want to have access to such a tool that will provide transparency in making informed decisions regarding the selection of a repair unit.

Thus, 9 out of 10 Romanians believe that it would be useful for the competent authority to publish annually, for informational purposes, some reference prices on the car repair market, as well as for the rental of vehicles received in exchange by persons affected by RCA during the repair period damaged.

2. Moreover, under the pretext of improving road safety, instead of solving the fundamental problem, which is the very high frequency of accidents, many Romanian drivers who are victims of road traffic accidents have their constitutionally protected right to own the vehicles they drive violated. own, limiting their ability to receive monetary compensation for damage caused to these vehicles. In addition, it starts from the false assumption that today everyone who wants to benefit from prepayments repairs their cars at unauthorized workshops.

Violation of property rights is manifested in the fact that the right of the owner of a damaged vehicle to decide its fate is limited, especially since in real life there are a variety of cases when victims of road accidents decide not to initiate the repair of a damaged car for personal reasons.

Let’s not forget that there are urgent situations when the affected parties need immediate financial compensation to cover various situations and expenses. These needs highlight the importance of flexibility and access to appropriate compensation to meet a wide range of personal needs and circumstances, going beyond simple car repairs.

In short, if the new legislative proposals become law, some RCA victims will be required to prove that they repaired their car, without otherwise being eligible for monetary compensation. However, this obligation no longer applies to the culprit, the one who caused the accident, or if the car is repaired under the CASCO policy or for other reasons (for example: replacement of old parts). As a result, impaired drivers will be discriminated against other categories of drivers who do not fall under this category.

However, we hope that the authorities will continue to respect people’s right to dispose of compensation as they wish, of course, in accordance with the law.

This means that measures to eliminate or reduce cases of car repairs by unlicensed businesses or worse should be the responsibility of the authorities responsible for road vehicles, road safety, environmental protection and quality assurance, prevention and control of traffic violations, as well as those who have duties to control and supervise the fulfillment by taxpayers of the duties provided for by tax legislation, and not by insurance companies, private business entities that have a different subject of activity and are clearly defined by Law 237/2015. .

5. Another proposal envisages a modification of the principle of application of “buy-out”. Such a provision would primarily favor drivers who cause harm, partially nullifying the benefits of the proposed bill’s change to the bonus-malus system.

6. Another risky provision is the introduction of an obligation for insurers to offer the sale of RCA policies in installments, including monthly installments – which is explicitly stated in the draft law.

Apart from the operational complexity required to manage such a system, the fact that an insurer can only terminate an RCA policy after a certain period of non-payment of premiums may encourage unscrupulous customers or those with insufficient financial credit to stop paying especially the last premiums and drive without insurance , which could potentially lead to accidents.

The consequence of this will be increased pressure on the FNP – the National Protection Fund, a fund fed by contributions paid by honest RCA policyholders, which also pays for losses caused by the uninsured, such as in the tragic accident on 2 May last August, a case which received wide publicity.

As we have repeatedly shown, the RCA insurance industry understands the need to support Romanian drivers, so the idea of ​​installments is already mentioned in the current law, but their number and working details must be mutually agreed, respecting the principle of contractual freedom between the policyholder and the RCA insurer, which allows the latter, based on risk analysis, to be able to evaluate the request and take into account the financial creditworthiness of the client, which he, in fact, lends.

7. Last but not least: Suspension of RCA policies. The new Directive on Motor Insurance gives Member States the possibility to introduce this option into their national legislation.

However, the ability to request, without reason, multiple suspensions of an insurance policy would create favorable conditions for abuse, thus facilitating insurance evasion through this potential provision.

Thus, this measure contained in the bill may lead to a decrease in the level of insurance coverage, creating an element of risk both for honest policyholders and, above all, for third parties who have suffered losses – the main persons who should benefit from protection . in case of an accident.

And in this case, the consequence could be increased pressure on the FNP, a fund fed by insurance premiums paid by bona fide RCA policyholders.

8. We consider it necessary to introduce an appropriate package of legislative measures to prevent evasion of the insurance obligation and to prevent the driving of uninsured vehicles by strengthening illegal sanctions for the uninsured and correspondingly changing the bonus-malus system to encourage responsible behavior on public roads.

Finally, insurers express their confidence that Parliament will have the openness to adjust the RCA law for the real benefit of road accident victims and all drivers, and that technical arguments will find their place even in an electoral context such as 2024.

Operator Warning: RCA prices will increase as a result of these changes

​Drivers will lose the 50% discount on the RCA price if they do not renew their policy within 30 days of its expiry or if they receive a traffic ticket, including for parking in prohibited areas, and RCA suspension will only be allowed if the car will not park in public access, otherwise a fine will be applied. Here are some of the ASF’s proposals to amend the RCA law, which would see carriers demand payments from insurers and increase prices.

• read: DOCUMENT RCA changes can “burn in the pocket” of drivers. ASF proposals that will raise prices and benefit insurers