A Polish regional court in Radom ruled that an insurer cannot force a claimant to use a specific repair shop, provided costs remain reasonable.
Dispute Over Car Repair Costs
The case centered on a dispute between a car accident victim and their insurer, where the insurer refused to pay the full claimed amount for damages. The insurer argued the claimant increased the damage by not using their preferred repair shop.
The Radom Regional Court rejected the insurer’s argument, awarding the claimant the full requested amount. The court emphasized that monetary compensation should function equivalently to restoring the vehicle to its prior condition.
Claimant’s Right to Choose Repair Shop
The court determined that whether the claimant repaired the vehicle and the cost of repairs are legally irrelevant, as long as the cost is within market rates. The claimant is free to choose any repair shop that charges reasonable prices.
Judicial precedent supports the principle that insurance payouts must cover all reasonable and economically justified expenses necessary to restore the vehicle to its pre-accident state.
No Obligation to Cooperate on Shop Selection
The court found that the claimant is not obligated to cooperate with the insurer in selecting a repair shop or to purchase parts at prices dictated by the insurer’s expert assessment. They are also not required to seek the cheapest possible repair.
While claimants must cooperate with the insurer and minimize damage, this cannot infringe upon their rights. The obligation to minimize damage must be reasonable and not used to pressure claimants into relinquishing their rights.
Court Rejects Insurer’s Claims of Increased Damage
The Radom court explicitly stated that the claimant was not required to use repair shops affiliated with the insurer or to purchase parts at prices determined by the insurer’s assessment. Forcing a claimant to choose where and for how much to repair a vehicle would undermine their right to choose how to settle the claim.
Legal Basis
The ruling is based on the judgment of the Radom Regional Court from December 8, 2025, case number V GC 559/24.