If the injured individual has sold or repaired the damaged car before obtaining compensation from the OC, it is not reasonable to find the amount of compensation as equivalent to the hypothetical repair costs, as it is known what the failure suffered. This is the crux of the latest resolution of the 7 ultimate Court civilian Chamber judges led by its president justice Joanna Misza-Konecka.
He asked the SN in December 2023 to deal with this issue.
The RF argued in its conclusion that there were 2 different positions in the case law of the SN in specified cases. According to the first, the amount of compensation had to be determined according to the hypothetical repair costs, i.e. the cost estimation method. The justification for this method is indicated that the compensation claim arises erstwhile the harm is caused (most frequently in a car accident) and the subsequent sale of the damaged vehicle or its repair before obtaining compensation from the OC is not applicable to the amount of compensation. However, in fresh years there have been a number of judgments questioning the cost method that the post-accident injury may change from accident to injury elimination.
The second method was contested by the financial spokesperson, indicating that compensation corresponding to hypothetical repair costs should besides be granted to the injured individual who sold the vehicle or repaired it on his own, but for insurance compensation he could not buy a vehicle corresponding to the class of the damaged one.
The ultimate Court did not share the Ombudsman's position by adopting a resolution: - If the repair of the vehicle by the injured individual has already become unnecessary (impossible) in peculiar in the event of disposal or repair of the vehicle (usually by its own effort), it is not justified to find the amount of compensation from the OC of motor vehicle holders as equivalent to hypothetical repair costs.
Mariusz Załucki, the Judge-Rapporteur, said in the explanatory memorandum of the resolution that if the injured individual had already repaired the vehicle, the amount of the harm is known and corresponds to the costs which he incurred to repair and possibly to lose the marketplace value of the vehicle after repair. In the event of disposal of a vehicle, the difference between the price obtained for the vehicle sold and its value before the accident shall be the damage.
According to Prof. Marcin Orlicki, UAM, legal adviser, this resolution sets limits on the usage of the costorisation method in determining the compensation due to the injured individual in the event of harm to his vehicle. The SN stressed that there is no place for hypothetical findings regarding the amount of injury where this amount is known and can be established on the basis of evidence relating to its origin and not just estimates.
– The harm to the injured individual involves the cost of repairing or reducing the marketplace value of the vehicle expressed by the price obtained. Thus, the assessment of harm is based on real values, not hypothetical ones, since the real harm was sustained by the victim – concludes Prof. Marcin Orlicki.
File number: III CZP 65/23
