Recently the Constitutional Court has ruled on a complaint filed by the victim of a traffic accident, who claimed, among other things, damages of around 100,000 Czech crowns from the liable party and its insurance company as compensation for the reduced market value of his damaged vehicle as compared to its hypothetical value if the accident had not occurred.
In the past, insurance companies forced the damaged parties in traffic accidents to bear a certain part of the costs of the repairs of their vehicles themselves, using the absurd argument that their market price had increased thanks to the use of new spare parts for the repair. The Czech courts of instance already put an end to these practices some time ago.
However, until now, insurance companies have refused to recognize that the same vehicle has a lower market value if it has been crashed than if it is undamaged. This approach – which was naturally aimed at minimising the insurance payout and protecting the budgets of the insurance companies to the detriment of in the victims of traffic accidents – has now become history thanks to the breakthrough ruling of the Constitutional Court.
According to the Constitutional Court, it is the task of common courts to provide satisfaction to the aggrieved parties for suffering damages to their property, so that they no longer have to contribute financially in covering the damage caused by traffic accidents and, simultaneously, to protect the liable parties from overpriced repairs.