The motor liability reform is coming to a head, but there remain issues to be resolved. In the examination of the annual bill on Competition, approved by the Government in the summer and now in the Chamber, Ivass and Ania have filed their briefs.
There is agreement on the need to modernize the system, but there are many points of disagreement, such as on the price of policies, bonus-malus and the fight against fraud.
What stage is the reform at?
The Competition Bill does not contain immediate measures, but a delegation to the Government, provided for in article 11. The text has obtained the approval of the State General Accounting Office and is being examined by the Productive Activities Commission of the Chamber. Once the law is in force, the Executive will have four months to adopt legislative decrees. The initial draft included nine: but the Government pushed to shorten the deadline.
Precisely regarding the timing, Ivass, which favorably evaluates the objectives of the reform, asks for caution: in its memorandum it suggests extending or making the deadline more flexible, to allow impact analysis and technical comparison.
However, until the adoption of the decrees, nothing will change for motorists.
The knot of the territory
The delegation aims to overcome the constraint of postal code and residence as a parameter in the calculation of the premium, to enhance the real driving style through the black box and to reward virtuous drivers.
Today a motorist in the South, even if in first class and without accidents, can potentially pay up to double that of a Lombard with the same profile.
Ivass shares the objective of reducing the weight of the territory, but warns that constraints that are incompatible with the market should not be imposed. Ania also recognizes that the territorial component maintains a significant weight on the premium.
The position of Ania
According to the association of insurance companies, over 80% of insured people are in the first merit class. So class would no longer distinguish the best drivers. For this reason it proposes a more selective “bonus-malus”, which returns to rewarding those who drive well.
On direct compensation, in which the company pays the damage to its insured and then takes action against the person responsible with a standard flat rate, Ania requests that the flat rate be calculated on five groups of provinces rather than on the three current macro-areas. The aim is to prevent companies in some areas from recording artificial losses or gains, then passing them on to premiums.
Ania also reminds you how the price is made up:
Of the 126.2 euros paid by the insured, 26.2 are taxes and contributions to the National Health Service, approximately a fifth of the total. Of the remaining 100 euros, 78.5 go to claims and settlement costs.
According to the association, therefore, the margins for reducing premiums are limited.
The anti-fraud clash
Finally, Ania asks to be able to consult the anti-fraud archive at the time of signing. However, Ivass fears the risk of false positives and evasion of the obligation to contract, i.e. the possibility that companies use the data to refuse or make some customers more expensive.
Complex elements, therefore, which clash with the desire to close the text quickly and with amendments for the introduction of the doggy bag and the extension of the Gradual Protection Service for the most vulnerable already deposited.
