At the scene, everything is still clear: the other driver apologises, signs the accident report form, and everyone goes home. Then their insurer writes: “our client has not made a statement”, or “our client disputes liability; we are keeping the case pending”. This is when the not-at-fault injured party realises that in a claim under compulsory motor third-party liability insurance (MTPL), what counts is not the apology but the evidence. As a broker, I see that these cases are decided in two places: at the scene, where the evidence is created, and in the three months after the claim is reported, when the law obliges the insurer to reply. This article covers both.
- Under Section 32 of the MTPL Act (Gfbt.), the insurer must establish whether the claim is justified not merely on the basis of its own client's statement, but “by comparing the available facts and data” – the at-fault driver's silence is not in itself a reason for rejection.
- Even without the documents, the insurer must give a reasoned reply no later than three months after the claim was submitted; keeping a claim “pending” is not an open-ended state.
- The injured party has to prove liability: this is where the weight of the completed accident report form, the police documents, the photos, the witnesses and the camera footage is decided – if the claim is rejected, the route is a complaint, the Financial Arbitration Board (PBT) or the courts.
Why does the insurer need the at-fault driver's statement – and why is its absence not reason enough?
Under the MTPL Act (Gfbt.), the at-fault insured person must report the incident to their own insurer in writing within 5 working days, describing the material circumstances. The insurer is therefore right to expect its client's statement – but its liability towards the injured party does not depend on it. If the at-fault driver stays silent, the insurer can take action against them: for breach of the duty to disclose information and report the claim, it can recover up to HUF 500,000 of the amount paid from them under Section 34 of the Gfbt. Towards you, however, Section 32(1) of the Gfbt. applies: the insurer must establish whether the claim for compensation is justified “by comparing what is stated in the insured person's statement on liability with the available facts and data”. The statement is therefore one element among many – if there is none, the decision must be based on the other evidence.
A withdrawn admission is similar: an accident report form signed at the scene does not lose its evidential value just because someone later says something different. The insurer – and, in a dispute, the court – compares the statements with the other evidence and weighs up which is more credible. A later withdrawal without any reasons rarely carries much weight in this assessment.
The three-month rule: how long “pending” can last
Under Section 31 of the Gfbt., within 15 days of receiving the documents essential for settling the claim, “but even if these have not been received, no later than three months after the claim for compensation was submitted”, the insurer must either make a duly reasoned compensation offer to the injured party or – if it does not accept liability, liability is not clear, or the amount cannot be determined – give a reasoned reply to the individual demands. So the insurer cannot keep citing, without any time limit, the fact that it is waiting for its client. The reasoned reply may also be a rejection – but then you know what you need to argue against, and the reply opens up the complaints route. If you accept the offer, the insurer has 15 days to pay (Gfbt. Section 32(3)); under Section 6:532 of the Hungarian Civil Code (Ptk.), compensation falls due when the damage occurs, and default interest is governed by Section 6:48 of the Ptk.
Who bears the burden of proof – and what makes good evidence?
When two motor vehicles collide, under Section 6:539 of the Ptk. the damage the parties cause each other must be assessed on the basis of fault; if neither party is at fault and no irregularity can be established either, each party bears its own loss. This rule explains why the burden of proof is on you: you have to show that the other party was at fault. The evidence, in order of weight:
- The accident report form, signed by both parties, with the circumstances boxes filled in and a sketch of the scene – which is why it is worth filling it in carefully at the scene, as the article on completing the report form shows.
- Police documents, if the police were called: the on-the-spot report and the outcome of the minor-offence proceedings are strong evidence, although they do not automatically decide civil-law liability. It is worth requesting the documents and sending them to the insurer.
- Photos of the positions of the vehicles, the damage, the tracks and marks, and the road signs – the ten shots in the photo guide were designed for this.
- Witnesses with names and contact details, and footage from a dashcam – if there is any, it cuts many disputes short.
If the police were not called, there is no completed report form and there are no witnesses either, the situation is difficult: the insurer typically cannot choose between two contradictory statements, and in court, too, the evidence decides. That is why discipline at the scene – report form, photos, witnesses, and the police if there is a dispute – is not a formality but the foundation of the later claims settlement.
Which route to take: the at-fault party's insurer, your own casco or the at-fault party directly?
There are three routes, and they are not mutually exclusive. Under MTPL, the at-fault party's insurer pays; the process is described in the article on claims by the injured party. If you have casco (comprehensive motor insurance), you can choose that route: your own insurer pays, less the deductible, then brings a recourse claim against the at-fault party's insurer, and once liability has been established, the deductible can also be recovered – the effect on your casco bonus differs from insurer to insurer. The third route is a civil-law claim: under the Gfbt., the injured party can also enforce their claim directly against the insurer, including through the courts. If the at-fault driver drove off or had no insurance, a different system steps in: the Compensation Account (Kártalanítási Számla; Gfbt. Sections 35–36) – with the important limitation that, for damage caused by an unidentified vehicle, under Section 36 of the Gfbt. it pays for property damage only if the accident also caused death or serious personal injury.
Steps if your claim is stuck
- Request the reasoned reply in writing, referring to Section 31 of the Gfbt. and the date of submission, once the three months have expired.
- Send in all the evidence, and submit the claim broken down by head of claim, with amounts – an incomplete claim is the most common cause of delay.
- A complaint to the insurer: you are entitled to a reasoned reply within 30 days (Government Decree 437/2016).
- The Financial Arbitration Board (PBT) as a consumer, or the courts; if you have legal-protection insurance, it may provide a lawyer paid by the insurer. The MNB (Hungary's central bank and financial supervisor) does not decide individual disputes; it can examine compliance with the claims-settlement deadlines.
- Watch the limitation period: under Section 6:538 of the Ptk., a claim based on liability for hazardous operations becomes time-barred after three years.
The primary route for claims settlement is the insurer's claims line. If a case gets stuck or disputed, I help where I can – I act on the client's behalf (as their agent, not the insurer's); I do not argue your case with the insurer in your place, and I do not provide legal representation. Exactly how far this help extends is described in the article on the broker's role.
Do you have a question about your own disputed claim? Run the online calculator in minutes, or book a free 20-minute consultation →
Sources
- MTPL Act (Gfbt., Act LXII of 2009) Sections 29–32, 34 – reporting, assessment of the claim, deadlines, recovery
- Hungarian Civil Code (Ptk., Act V of 2013) Sections 6:48, 6:532, 6:538, 6:539
- K&H Biztosító – MTPL claims-settlement information (establishing whether a claim is justified, deadlines)
- Government Decree 437/2016 – complaints handling, 30-day reply
- MNB – Financial Arbitration Board (Pénzügyi Békéltető Testület)
- MNB – Pénzügyi Navigátor (Financial Navigator) consumer protection
