The new regulations introduced with the Destination Italy decree are unable to solve the problems associated with motor liability insurance, since they introduce price constraints "without any quantification being made, albeit on a forecast basis, regarding the actual reduction of costs resulting from the application of the rules themselves”. This is what can be read in a letter to the Government which bears the signature of the president of the National Council of Actuaries, Giampaolo Crenca, and of the president of the Order of Actuaries, Fausto Belliscioni. The text is addressed to Prime Minister Enrico Letta, to the Minister of Economic Development Fabio Zanonato, to the president of Ivass Salvatore Rossi and to the president of ANIA Aldo Minucci.
According to the actuaries, it is "worrying" that once again almost all of the rules that are about to be introduced have the objective of reducing the share of compensation generated by fraud, "while practically nothing has been envisaged to reduce the share of compensation actually due, because they are consequent to material and/or physical damage following a road accident".
The letter underlines that, data in hand, frauds have a significant impact only in some limited territorial areas (where specific initiatives could be prepared); while, on a national basis, they constitute just 5% of the total compensation. Even assuming that for every fraud that is discovered there is one that escapes, and therefore doubling the figure, we arrive at 10% of the total compensation. The provisions contained in the decree, write Giampaolo Crenca and Fausto Belliscioni, almost completely leave out the shares for the remaining 90%.
The actuaries also present their specific observations on the individual measures to the government. Here are the most significant ones in summary:
VEHICLE INSPECTION
“The insurance company can offer it: if the policyholder accepts it, he has a rate reduction. The aim is to avoid paying damages prior to taking out the policy. But only the honest will accept it, to get the discount. Not to mention that whoever is in charge of the inspection certainly won't do it for free. The desired benefit, argue the actuaries, could be totally absorbed by the costs incurred for the inspection, with a necessary significant increase in premiums for those who do not decide to have their vehicle inspected”.
BLACK BOX
The actuaries judged the non-compulsory offer for companies to be "positive", and "the quantification of a minimum amount of discount (quantified as 7%) before verifying the actual benefits on the amount of the compensations as negative. However, the feeling remains that the lower premiums collected by policyholders with a black box, if not entirely compensated by the reduction in compensation, will have to be covered by those who do not install it, not necessarily fraudsters".
COMPENSATION IN SPECIFIC FORM
“Already envisaged by the insurance code, but little applied, according to the actuaries it presents positive aspects because it is aimed at reducing compensation for material damage. However, the letter notes that the rule does not apply only to the Card regime but also to injured third parties, who therefore see their freedom of choice of bodywork limited, without having benefited from a discount on the premium for this. As for the discount, which is mandatory and to a minimum extent, it presents some uncertainties on the methods of application that will need to be clarified".
MEDICAL-HEALTH SERVICES
“In principle, the rule for actuaries is interesting as it is potentially able to reduce the "real" costs of claims (for injuries) and not just fraudulent ones. However, the minimum limit of 7% reduction is judged completely unreasonable because:
– the reduction in costs concerns a marginal portion of the compensation (only the "out-of-pocket" expenses following an accident, such as specialist visits, physiotherapy, etc.) and not the preponderant items of damage (temporary incapacity, permanent invalidity, biological and non-material damage , etc…);
– it is not believed that this clause can be opposed to third parties (including transported); therefore it can only apply to injuries to the policyholder/owner of the vehicle in the event of Card accidents.
For these reasons - explain the actuaries - it is believed that at most we can expect a reduction in total compensation not exceeding 1%. Lastly, the actuaries note that the cumulative minimum reductions are 23% (excluding vehicle inspection). It seems very unlikely that a reduction in costs of the same proportion can be recorded; just think that the rules almost entirely affect fraud, the cost of which is estimated to be well below the cumulative reductions envisaged”.
Attachments: The position of Ania
