The onset of the obligations arising from the Environmental Law has favored the generation of a new type of claims that since 2006 has invaded the Claims sector of Insurance Companies almost doubling, in fact, the items of damage for each claim. This phenomenon on behalf of a leading Insurance Company has been investigated and studied by us since 2007 when we were asked to express ourselves as Engineers on the technical-legal circumstances and therefore also on the framing of the costs of restoration and responsibility involved.The main counterpart Company that rode this case history of claims and proposed itself to the Roads and Structures Owners was soon followed by others that duplicated its know-how and the claims offices of the Companies found their archives full of claims to be handled whose nature and costs they did not know. This generated a subsequent rush to liquidation to dispose of backlogs of thousands of positions by accessing alleged tariffs devoid of technical content that the counterparties proposed for the determination of damages to an expert witness system that was in fact unprepared because it was unaware of the phenomenon.
Only the study from 'inside these Companies performed by PACEINGEGNERIA to respond to the directional order allowed the writer to monitor materials , structures and procedures realmenti useful for the restoration according to the' emergency hypothesis of intervention underlying the title of the new claim.
Such work has contributed since the 'time to mortify the lump sum claims even for small areas to be treated that initially stood at 1950.00 euros until the current 600.00 euros or so. The entire insurance market has benefited from this, but it has been diverted by the fact that the new agreements, if on the one hand they made them accept lower base amounts over time, have slowly allowed the decrease of the areas admitted to the minimum value of direct settlement. From the 'era to the present, there have been various players in the market who have organized themselves by issuing concessions and contracts with entities and municipalities to provide them with this service at zero cost in exchange for an assignment of their credit from insurance claims generating uncontrolled diseconomy on the basis of borderline agreements and expenses.
We have been successfully countering this phenomenon for more than 15 years through centralized settlement that levels counterparties and favors the entry of the market rule for determining costs in a policy of reducing disbursements by Insurance Companies also enhancing the economy of scale that is generated due to the large number of claims handled by these Road Cleaning Companies. Even today, many players in the settlement of damages have not started this virtuous path generating distortions in the settlement world that always generate new counterparties attracted by high earnings and ease of file processing and speed of settlement.
It remains a hope that the market of insurers will begin to read between the lines of this phenomenon, limiting the benefits of fast settlement to only those cases that affect the community, according to the provisions of the Environmental Law. In this way we can 'get a sudden downsizing to reality' of the costs of these restoration interventions that have nothing to do with the 'emergency.