Insurance

Third party liability insurance on private areas, historic vehicles and breakdowns, what will change with the amendment

The regulation correcting and clarifying the rules on compulsory insurance in private areas also deals with end-of-life and historic vehicles

by Maurizio Hazan and Enrico Vittorio Piccolo

4 February 2026

4' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

4' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

Legislative Decree 184/2023, known in brief for having extended to private areas the compulsory motor liability insurance, will have a corrective decree. The first step was taken on 23 December 2025, with the transmission from the government to parliament. But the text does not seem entirely capable of resolving the application issues that are still open. Let us see what might change, starting by summarising the main points of the regulations currently in force.

The current situation

The reform of motor third party liability insurance, introduced by Legislative Decree no. 184 of 22 November 2023 (by which the EU directive EU/2021/2118 was implemented) has significantly altered the structure of the regulations originally contained in the Insurance Code (Cap, Article 122), significantly broadening the scope of the insurance obligation and extending it - for the protection of potentially damaged third parties - to all the vehicles indicated by the regulation, even if circulating in private areas and also in relation to static risk (provided that such vehicles are used in accordance with the vehicle's function as a means of transport at the time of the accident).

The new perimeter of the insurance obligation and the set of exceptions provided for in Article 122-bis introduced into the Code by Legislative Decree 184/2023 has given rise to numerous interpretative and applicative doubts of great impact on certain economic operators and, first and foremost, on insurance companies active in class 10.

Therefore, for more than two years now, many have been calling for a corrective intervention to mitigate the scope of the reform, first of all by excluding from the obligation certain vehicles that were never insured in the past (e.g. forklifts and lift trucks circulating only within company premises) or that do not appear to carry dynamic risks that would require coverage (e.g. vehicles stored at dealerships or rental companies, waiting to be put on the road).

Possible new features

Primarily, Article 122-bis of the Insurance Code (Cap) is revised to specify the scope of the exemption provided for the case where the 'vehicle is unfit for use as a means of transport'. The explanatory memorandum makes it clear that the intention is to restrict it to situations in which the vehicle is missing one of its essential parts and is therefore definitively unfit for use.

Not, on the other hand, when the vehicle is devoid of elements that, initially removed, can easily be reinserted (wheels, battery, steering wheel, etc.) and not even when it is temporarily stationary due to a breakdown or without fuel. But the literal wording of the rule does not seem to be in line with these intentions and raises new doubts: the exemption 'includes' and is not 'limited' to the case of stable unsuitability for use due to the lack of essential parts.

Among the other novelties, of note is the introduction of paragraph 2-bis to Article 122-bis, which delegates to a Ministerial Decree of Mimit and MIT (having consulted Ivass) the provision of compulsory insurance contracts for seasonal use of motor vehicles and watercraft, with a duration of less than the year envisaged by Article 170-bis. The measure, accepted by the illustrative report as a response to a consolidated practice, should avoid imposing annual coverage on vehicles that circulate only for limited periods, such as motorboats in dry dock or seasonal rental vehicles, without violating the EU principles of directive 2021/2118. This provision, which makes absolute common sense, will have to be harmonised with the (debated and in any case different) regulation of the voluntary suspension of cover (already provided for in Article 122-bis, paragraph 2).

The reform scheme also introduces a novelty for historic and collectors' vehicles: the obligation can be fulfilled with alternative insurance schemes to the traditional motor insurance, provided that the premium for the risk from movement is indicated separately from that for parking. A mitigation that avoids over-insurance on vehicles with low dynamic risk, recovering the logic of proportionality enshrined in recital 14 of the European directive.

In addition, the perplexities of the automobile sports world, which was involved in the insurance obligation by Decree Law 184/2023, are taken on board: Article 124 of the Cap is amended. Similarly to what happened before Decree Law 184, it is allowed to obtain authorisation for races and trials not only with a motor third-party liability policy, but also with a general third-party liability insurance policy, taken out by the organiser and adequate to protect injured third parties.

The questions still to be clarified

It is singular that one of the most controversial reform and derogation issues, and one with the greatest operational impact, has been (disorganisedly) confined to another piece of legislation in the process of being enacted: the annual SME Bill (now before the House, Ac 2673), Article 9 of which exempts from compulsory insurance:

- forklifts (not registered);

- other vehicles used by undertakings in railways, ports and airports;

- the agricultural machinery referred to in Article 57 of the Road Traffic Act, which is not registered or does not have a certificate of technical roadworthiness, and which operates exclusively within agricultural land, agricultural holdings or areas for internal use that are not accessible to the public.

In all three cases, the exemption does not exempt those vehicles from being covered by third party liability insurance other than compulsory insurance. A prompt and more harmonious overall arrangement would certainly be desirable. Solving other operational doubts still unanswered.

These include the exemption in the case of purchase for resale of a vehicle with the 'minivolt', clarifications as to how the fleets of vehicles (such as those in leasing or renting) that are normally used on a discontinuous basis should be insured, and it would appear that they can still be covered by the registration book policies already in current practice (Article 122(1-ter) of the Cap).