In motor and general liability claims, insurers often maintain network arrangements with authorized or “contracted” repair shops that include discounted labor rates, parts rebates, or package pricing. These arrangements are efficient for insurers and garages, but they do not bind third parties who suffer loss. Put plainly: a discount agreement between the insurer and a repair shop cannot diminish the injured party’s right to full compensation. This guide explains the legal logic behind that principle and offers practical steps for claimants and their counsel.
1) Full compensation and the non-reduction rule
The foundational rule in tort and insurance indemnity is full reparation of the actual loss. Compensation aims to restore the injured party’s patrimony to the position it would have been in but for the wrongful act—no more, no less. Contractual discounts negotiated between an insurer and a service provider affect only the internal allocation of cost between those two contracting parties. They neither redefine the market value of the loss nor rewrite the debtor’s legal obligation toward the injured party. Any attempt to calculate damages using “network rates” or “preferred supplier tariffs” contradicts the full compensation principle because those rates are not a proxy for the objective cost of rectifying the damage in the open market.
2) Privity and third-party effects
A discount protocol is a private contract. The doctrine of privity prevents its terms from being imposed on a non-party. The victim did not consent to the insurer–garage rebate, did not participate in its negotiation, and is not obliged to accept a reduced settlement derived from it. At most, such an agreement may govern the insurer’s reimbursement to the garage or the recourse between insurer and insured; it cannot operate erga omnes to cap a third party’s damages.
3) Direct action against liability insurers
In motor vehicle incidents and other compulsory insurance settings, the injured party commonly holds a direct action against the liability insurer. The measure of that claim equals the liable party’s legal responsibility up to policy limits, determined by objective loss. The insurer may not substitute its network price list for the legally cognizable damage figure. Where the injured party chooses a non-network repairer, the correct benchmark remains reasonable market rates for equivalent work and parts quality, not the lower figures in an insurer’s internal framework agreement.
4) Parts quality, labor rates, and VAT
Disputes frequently arise over (i) whether original (OEM) or equivalent parts must be used, (ii) the hourly labor rate, and (iii) whether value-added tax is recoverable. The touchstone remains the cost reasonably required to restore the asset to its pre-loss condition. If the vehicle is under warranty or the manufacturer’s standards demand OEM components to maintain safety and residual value, a unilateral substitution with cheaper equivalents is improper. Hourly labor should reflect prevailing regional market rates for comparable workshops, not a discounted figure available only within a closed network. VAT is part of the repair cost when it is actually incurred and not creditable to the claimant; it cannot be refused on the basis that the insurer’s garage would have billed net of certain rebates.
5) Betterment and salvage: narrow, evidence-based adjustments
The non-reduction rule does not abolish legitimate, evidence-based deductions for betterment or salvage where the repair clearly leaves the asset in a superior condition compared with its pre-loss state. However, such adjustments require strict proof and proportional calculation. They cannot be smuggled in through a “discount” label or assumed from the existence of an insurer–service deal. The burden rests with the party asserting betterment to quantify it transparently.
6) Duty to mitigate, without subsidizing the wrongdoer
Claimants must act reasonably to limit loss, but mitigation does not oblige them to patronize a particular garage or to accept inferior parts, extended delays, or inconvenient locations simply to match an insurer’s network economics. Reasonableness is assessed objectively: if a non-network repair at ordinary market rates is appropriate to restore the vehicle safely and promptly, the resulting cost is recoverable.
7) Practical steps for claimants
– Commission an independent expert report identifying necessary repair operations, appropriate parts (OEM or certified equivalent), standard labor hours, and regional market rates.
– Obtain competing quotations from reputable workshops to evidence the market cost baseline.
– Document warranty terms, service history, and any manufacturer requirements that justify OEM parts.
– Keep complete records of invoices, payment proofs, and any temporary replacement vehicle hire; ensure VAT treatment is clear.
– Challenge unilateral deductions pegged to “contracted service discounts,” “internal tariffs,” or “rebate matrices,” and request disclosure of the objective basis for any proposed rate.
– Where the insurer insists on network routing, accept only if it meets quality, timing, and convenience standards comparable to market options; otherwise record reasons for refusal.
8) Drafting points for settlements and repairs
Settlement wording should state that compensation is based on actual, reasonable market cost and that any insurer–service discounts do not reduce the amount payable to the injured party. If using a network garage, clarify that discounts affect only the insurer’s internal cost and will not limit the scope or quality of works. For cash-in-lieu settlements, attach the expert report and quotations to fix the payable amount and avoid later disputes.
Conclusion
The principle is straightforward: a discount agreement between the insurer and a repair shop cannot diminish the injured party’s right to full compensation. Loss is measured by the reasonable market cost to restore the pre-loss condition, with narrowly tailored, proven adjustments only. Insurer–service rebates operate between those parties; they are not a lawful mechanism to under-indemnify the victim.
Yanıt yok