RCA Litigation in Practice
Member of the Bucharest Bar
In RCA litigation, insurers frequently rely on so-called extrajudicial expert reports to delay or refuse payment of compensation. The issue is not the existence of a technical assessment itself, but the way in which it is carried out.
What is an extrajudicial expert report?
An extrajudicial expert report is a technical assessment commissioned by the insurer, outside any adversarial framework and without the participation of the injured party. The problem is not that a technical assessment exists, but the non-transparent way it is normally produced.
Where the accident caused bodily injury, the criminal aspect is tried separately. We covered the penalties and time limits under Art. 196 of the Criminal Code in our article on bodily injury compensation after a road accident.
Why is a one-sided assessment a problem?
Because a decision with major financial consequences is taken on evidence produced unilaterally by the party with an interest in paying less. In most cases the injured party is not invited to participate in the assessment, is not asked for a viewpoint, and does not receive the full report.
Compensation is then refused on the basis of an evaluation the claimant cannot verify or effectively challenge. That imbalance is the core of the dispute.
What does court practice show in RCA litigation?
Courts frequently order a judicial expert report, carried out under procedural safeguards and allowing both parties to submit objections. Unlike the insurer's assessment, the judicial report is produced in adversarial proceedings, under the court's supervision.
In many cases the conclusions of the judicial expert contradict the extrajudicial assessment, and the insurer's initial report loses its evidentiary weight.
What can the injured party do about a refusal?
A refusal based on a non-transparent extrajudicial report can be challenged. The practical steps are:
- request the full expert report from the insurer, under Art. 21 of Law 132/2017;
- review how the assessment was conducted and the documents it relies on;
- challenge the conclusions through a lawyer, in the preliminary procedure or in court;
- request a court-appointed expert report in adversarial proceedings.
How long does the insurer have to respond to a claim?
The RCA insurer has 30 days from the date the compensation claim is filed either to make an offer or to reject the claim with reasons, under Art. 21 (1) and (2) of Law 132/2017. Within that period the insurer must either present a justified offer or notify the rejection and its grounds in writing. A refusal that is unmotivated or delivered late is itself an argument in litigation. Under Art. 21 (2), failure to respond within the 30-day term amounts to an obligation to pay the compensation claimed.
What is the difference between a motivated and an unmotivated refusal?
A motivated refusal states the concrete reason and the document it rests on. An unmotivated refusal does not. The law permits the insurer to reject a claim, but only with reasons: it must show specifically why compensation is denied or reduced. A refusal that fails to indicate the real grounds, or that relies on an expert report the injured party cannot examine, is vulnerable in court.
In practice many refusals are drafted in generic terms, such as "incomplete file", "no coverage" or "assessment below the amount requested", without identifying the document or the calculation behind them.
What penalties does the insurer owe for late payment?
The insurer owes penalties of 0.2% per day of delay, calculated on the compensation due or on the unpaid difference, under Art. 21 (4) of Law 132/2017. The penalty applies where the insurer fails to meet its obligations on time, reduces the compensation without justification, or delays payment.
The starting point was settled by the High Court of Cassation and Justice in Decision ICCJ-RIL no. 18/2023: the 0.2% daily penalty runs from the expiry of the 30-day period in which the insurer was required to respond. That ruling binds the lower courts, which strengthens the position of a claimant who asks for the penalties and not only the underlying compensation.
Can an RCA dispute be settled without going to court?
Yes. Before or instead of litigation, the injured party can use the alternative dispute resolution procedure for the non-banking financial sector, run by SAL-Fin, a body within ASF. The procedure is free of charge for consumers and usually concludes faster than court proceedings.
SAL-Fin is not mandatory and does not block access to the courts. For significant amounts or complex bodily injury claims, litigation often remains the more effective route, because it allows a judicial expert report to be produced in adversarial proceedings.
Can the injured party sue the insurer directly?
Yes. The injured party has a direct right of action against the RCA insurer and does not need to sue the driver at fault first. In court the decisive instrument is the judicial expert report, produced in adversarial proceedings, which restores the real value of the damage where the insurer's extrajudicial assessment undervalued it.
Alongside the base compensation, the claim can include late payment penalties and litigation costs. Taken together, these frequently mean that a reduced amicable offer is no longer worth accepting compared with what can be obtained in court.
If an insurer has refused your claim, reduced it without justification or delayed payment, you can request a consultation. We review the file together and assess whether late payment penalties apply. Contact us.
Conclusion
A refusal of compensation based on a non-transparent extrajudicial expert report can be effectively challenged. The judicial expert report, produced in adversarial proceedings, is the strongest instrument for restoring the real value of the damage.
The text of Law 132/2017 on RCA insurance is available on the official legislative portal.
Frequently asked questions
Why do RCA insurers refuse payment based on extrajudicial expert reports?
Insurers rely on extrajudicial expert reports to delay or refuse payment. The issue is not the technical assessment itself, but how it is carried out: at the insurer's initiative, outside any adversarial framework and without the participation of the injured party.
What evidentiary value does an extrajudicial expert report have in court?
In litigation, courts frequently order a judicial expert report, carried out under procedural safeguards and allowing the parties to submit objections. In many cases the judicial expert's conclusions contradict the extrajudicial assessment, and the insurer's initial report loses its evidentiary value.
What can the injured party do if compensation is refused?
Request the full expert report from the insurer under Art. 21 of Law 132/2017, review how the assessment was conducted, and challenge the conclusions through a lawyer. If the insurer refuses to provide the report, that refusal itself supports the claim in court and can be raised as evidence of an unmotivated rejection.
How can I obtain the expert report from the insurer?
Request it in writing, citing Art. 21 of Law 132/2017. The insurer must communicate the grounds of its decision and the documents it relies on. If the report is not provided, that refusal itself becomes evidence in litigation, because the insurer cannot base a rejection on material the claimant was never allowed to examine.
What penalties does the insurer owe if it delays payment of RCA compensation?
Penalties of 0.2% per day of delay, under Art. 21 (4) of Law 132/2017. They are calculated on the compensation due or on the unpaid difference. Under Decision ICCJ-RIL no. 18/2023, the penalties run from the expiry of the 30-day response period, not from the date of the court judgment.
Does the insurer failing to reply within 30 days mean the claim is accepted?
Yes. Under Art. 21 (2) of Law 132/2017, failure to respond within 30 days of the claim being filed amounts to an obligation to pay the compensation requested. The claimant should keep proof of the filing date, because the entire term is calculated from it.
What is the difference between SAL-Fin and going to court?
SAL-Fin is free, faster and run by ASF, but it cannot order a judicial expert report. Court proceedings are slower yet allow an adversarial technical assessment and late payment penalties. For contested valuations or bodily injury, litigation is usually the stronger route.
© 2025 Boga Law Firm. This article and all content on this website are protected by copyright. Reproduction, distribution or use of the content, in whole or in part, by any means, is prohibited without the prior written consent of Boga Law Firm. The content is strictly informative and does not constitute legal advice.