Car insurance, tight deadlines and a North-South divide to be addressed: what is the current status of the reform?
Once the draft bill becomes law, the Government will have four months to lay the foundations for the reform. IVASS, the insurance supervisory authority, considers this timeframe to be ‘particularly tight’. ANIA is proposing a more ‘selective’ first class
Whilst the budget aims to track down vehicles on the road without insurance, the reform of motor vehicle liability insurance is moving forward, albeit with a few outstanding issues. These are two distinct issues, but both have significant implications for the public: the first concerns vehicle inspections; the second relates to how insurance premiums are calculated.
This last point is set out in the competition bill, which was approved by the Government in the summer and is now being examined by the Chamber of Deputies. The text does not contain any immediate measures but rather a delegated power: once it comes into force, the Government will have four months to adopt the legislative decrees that will give shape to the reform, from the no-claims bonus scheme to the rules on direct compensation.
Tight deadlines
This is where the first sticking point arises: the issue of timeframes. In the document submitted to the Productive Activities Committee, IVASS, the insurance supervisory authority, considers the timeframe ‘particularly tight’ for carrying out impact assessments and coordinating the new rules with ‘fragmented’ and multi-layered regulations, and proposes either extending it or proceeding in stages. The Government, on the other hand, has shortened the timeframe for the implementing legislation, in order to speed up the process ahead of the end of the parliamentary term.
Regional disparities
The issue is linked to the political significance of the matter, which is felt particularly keenly in certain parts of the South, where premiums have historically been higher than in the North. This is the second key issue. IVASS warns that reducing the influence of geographical location through ‘explicit tariff restrictions’ might not be entirely compatible with the freedom to set tariffs established by the EU.
The proposed approach involves providing more information on individual risk: additional ‘verifiable and transparent’ criteria to reward safe drivers, voluntary excesses that are useful ‘even in areas characterised by a higher frequency or cost of claims’, and a strengthened obligation to take out cover against premiums that are ‘excessively high and not based on technical parameters’.
