Proposition 51K2653

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

July 20, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

motor vehicle insurance civil liability compulsory insurance insurance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Nov. 16, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Amendment to the Act of 21 November 1989 on the compulsory liability insurance for motor vehicles.

This draft law aims to amend the unlimited coverage applicable in the civil liability insurance of motor vehicles. The reinsurance undertakings have announced that they will no longer be willing to provide unlimited coverage, with the consequence that the insurance undertakings, which under the current law are obliged to provide unlimited coverage, are at risk of getting into difficulties, at least for the major damage cases.

The motor vehicle insurance company is obliged to compensate the victims in their entirety while it can only recover from a limited reinsurance coverage. The draft law retains the unlimited coverage for compensation for damage resulting from physical injury but creates the possibility for insurance companies to limit the coverage of physical damage to a minimum of 100 million euros per damage event.

During the general discussion, comments were made by colleagues Creyf and Gerkens. Mrs Creyf stated that while the Minister claimed that it was an unlimited coverage of physical injury, Article 2 states that the King is empowered to limit the coverage even for physical injury. She considers it unacceptable that this could be done through a KB and she considers that this should be included in the law. The Minister replicated that a ceiling of 100 million euros could possibly be introduced but that this can only be done after consultation in the Council of Ministers. This method guarantees a well-thoughtful decision.

Mrs Gerkens also joined Mrs Creyf’s comments. She had the same comment. She found it impossible that that derogation could be implemented without any control by Parliament.

In the voting of the three articles, Article 1 was unanimously adopted. On Article 2, the Minister submitted an amendment to remove in paragraph 2, paragraph 2, the words "the insurance companies". This amendment was unanimously adopted. Article 2 was adopted with 8 votes for and 2 abstentions. Article 3 was adopted with 8 votes for and 2 abstentions. The amended bill was adopted with 8 votes for and 2 abstentions.

Ms Creyf has the word in the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, as the reporter just said, it is a bill of three articles. Therefore, it is a small bill, but it has a large scope.

The draft law abolishes the unlimited coverage of material damage in the insurance “car civil liability”. This is done at the request of the insurers and especially of the reinsurers, who have major problems with insurance with unlimited coverage. I think this is indeed a real problem, which has been pushed forward by the insurance sector for a very long time. They actually want to quit insurance with unlimited coverage.

Insurers and reinsurers are also requesting parties for the abolition of the unlimited coverage of physical damage. Minister Verwilghen has always stated that he intends to abolish only the unlimited coverage of physical damage and not the unlimited coverage of physical damage. Despite the ministry’s statements, Article 2 still provides for the possibility of abolishing the unlimited coverage of bodily damage by royal decree.

I repeat what I said in the committee. Such an important matter cannot be settled by a royal decree. This comes to Parliament. For me, there are two possibilities: either one takes only the abolition of the unlimited coverage of physical damage into the law, or one takes the abolition of both the unlimited coverage of physical damage and of the unlimited coverage of physical damage into the law, but then it is stated in the law and then it happens after a debate in the Parliament. We do not find a royal decision for such an important matter appropriate.

Together with colleague Pieters, I abstained in the committee, but we still ensured that the bill could be approved by providing the quorum to be able to validly vote, since the majority was not in number to validly vote. Our group will therefore also abstain from voting on this bill.

Mijnheer de voorzitter, in de commission heb ik gezegd dat er three redenen zijn om de aanpassing door te voeren. Ten first is a stock market crisis in the past. Ten second are the events of September 11, 2001. Ten third is er - dit wordt vaak vergeten - de Europese richtlijn van 16 november 2005 die zich in het algemeen uitspreekt over het feit dat unbeperkte dekkingen niet meer kunnen worden toegestaan. At a certain moment we have a number of efforts.

We have requested the opinion of the OECD Insurance Committee. We did the same with CBFA and with the chairman of the Joint Automotive Guarantee Fund who insisted on finding a solution.

Then we come to the decision we have made. If you read the law, you will see it. There is a limit for material damage up to 100 million euros. The physical damage remains unlimited, except in very exceptional cases; then a different amount may be determined. It cannot be less than one hundred million euros separately. In this case, we are talking about 200 million euros. This can be done after a decision taken in the Council of Ministers.

In this way, we have actually largely followed one of the recommendations of the CBFA. It was the CBFA that insisted on limiting that too, but I did not want to do that and the government did not. Of course, no one can predict what the distant future will involve. To be somewhat illustrative, a number of countries – the list is not exhaustive – like the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and Denmark, also has a limit for physical injury. We have not retained that in the law, except in a very exceptional situation, which we generally do not wish to use or abuse.

With regard to the arguments put forward by the Minister, we have no problem. However, I have said myself that such important matters should be included in the law. That must be stated in the law. A la limite I could eventually agree to a limitation of the physical damage to 100 million euros, as now exceptionally will have to be allowed at KB. We could possibly accept that it was in the law but our resistance arises against the fact that this could be arranged at KB. We have questions about that. In addition, as the Minister says, there are many countries that have a limitation of coverage for physical damage but no limitation of coverage for physical damage.