THEamendment to the Milleproroghe decree on family car liability further worsens a regulatory framework that already presents numerous critical issues. This is the opinion of the actuaries on the innovations that the omnibus provision, definitively approved by the Chamber and currently under consideration by the Senate, contains on car insurance.
Let's make a brief summary: on 16 February the law entered into force new legislation introduced by the tax decree on family car liability which allows for monitoring the use the most advantageous insurance class on all policies taken out for vehicles (both cars and motorcycles) belonging to members of the same family unit. A mechanism already soundly rejected by the actuaries because "the insurance premiums, even if relating to compulsory coverage as in the case of motor liability, must be determined with scientific criteria, in compliance with the principles and rules of the actuarial technique". And this to "guarantee the fairness of the premiums themselves, since higher risks must correspond to higher premiums, and vice versa".
The Milleproroghe decree which, after having received the trust of the Chamber, is preparing to be voted on without modifications by the Senate (the text is close to expiring and if it were changed it would have to go back to Montecitorio) contains one more correction. On the basis of the provisions of amendment no. 41, insurance companies will have the option of increasing the insurance of the beneficiary of the family civil liability which caused the an accident causing damage exceeding 5 thousand euros, but only for vehicles of different types. Let's take a practical example: if the accident was caused by the driver of a scooter that has the most favorable class of merit belonging to the car of a member of the family, in the event of damage exceeding 5 euros, the driver's class of merit may go up 5 units. If, on the other hand, the combination is car-car or scooter-scooter, everything remains unchanged.
“It's the umpteenthor provision that risks further compromising the correct management of the Bonus/Malus as a technical tool for determining insurance rates”, the actuaries comment according to which “the corrective made in extremis seems aimed at the possibility of a sort of retrospective repentance. In simple words: I gave you a benefit because I thought you deserved it, but if I'm wrong, I'll get it back. As it is written this amendment risks being more harmful than useless.”, they explain.
The reason is obvious: the rule links the functioning of the Bonus/Malus system not only to the accident, but also to its amount and the type of vehicle and could therefore lead to a lengthening of the settlement times and change the nature of the mechanism itself, based on the estimation of the policyholder's risk (based on observation of his history) and not on a reward/punishment system.
Further criticisms are then addressed to the discretion left to the insurance companies “in terms of application or not and in terms of level of penalty” and to the fact that the law does not set any time limit: the companies, theoretically, could decide to "strike even a driver who, after 30/40 years from having benefited from the law, is responsible for an accident", continue the actuaries according to whom even the definition of "5 classes" of merit could even favor the worst drivers and don't damage them. In short, the rejection is on the whole line.
