Most companies with a fleet have some kind of “car rule” – verbal, by e-mail, or at best on a single page – but it is rarely drawn up with insurance in mind. And in a claim, three questions are decided on paper: whether casco (comprehensive motor insurance) pays, what the company can prove, and what it passes on to the driver. As a broker, I see that a significant proportion of disputed cases get stuck not on the policy conditions but on a missing internal rule: nothing has been recorded about who was allowed to drive, where the key should have been, or by when the claim should have been reported. The Labour Code provides a convenient form for this: under Section 17 of the Labour Code (Mt.), the employer may also make its legal statements in internal rules laid down unilaterally, and the rules must be regarded as communicated if they are published in the manner that is customary locally and generally known. So there is no need to amend the contract with each employee separately – but not even the internal rules can override the limits on compensation. The article on driver rules discusses the loss-prevention and motivational side; this piece goes through the six points that are worth setting down because of insurance.
- Under Section 17 of the Labour Code (Mt.), the employer may also lay down the rules in unilateral internal rules, which count as communicated once published in the manner customary at the workplace – but not even the internal rules can override the limits on compensation payable by employees.
- The six insurance points: permitted drivers and driving licence checks, private use and trips abroad, handling of keys and documents, the claim reporting deadline, the procedure for the deductible and compensation, and prohibitions and who is responsible for the technical condition.
- Behind each point there is a specific policy condition or statutory provision: casco grounds for exemption, the recourse claim under Section 34 of the MTPL Act (Gfbt.), claim reporting under Section 6:453 of the Hungarian Civil Code (Ptk.) – the vehicle use policy does not bind the insurer, but it helps the company prove its case.
1. Permitted drivers and entitlement to drive
Set down who may drive: by name or by job role, and on what condition – a valid driving licence for the vehicle's category, a copy of which is held by the fleet manager and whose validity the company checks at specified intervals. Write down the ban on handing the vehicle over to anyone else, or how such a handover is authorised, and the employee's obligation to report the withdrawal or expiry of their driving licence without delay. Why is this an insurance question? Hungarian casco conditions typically treat it as a ground for exemption if the person lawfully driving the vehicle did not hold a valid driving licence; and in compulsory motor third-party liability insurance (MTPL), under Section 34(1)(d) of the MTPL Act (Gfbt.), the insurer can claim back the compensation paid from the person who drove without a licence – and also from the insured who handed over the driving to such a person – unless the latter proves that they had good reason to assume the driver held a licence. Documented driving licence checks can be that “good reason” – whether they are sufficient is judged, in a dispute, by the insurer and ultimately by the court.
2. Private use and trips abroad
State clearly whether private use is permitted, for whom, and whether family members may drive the vehicle. Also set down the procedure for taking the vehicle abroad: prior permission, a green card in the vehicle, checking the territorial scope – not every cover applies in every country, and this varies from insurer to insurer. The type of use must be disclosed to the insurer: if the proposal states business use only, regular private use can become a disclosure issue, and in MTPL, Section 34(1)(g) of the Gfbt. also gives grounds for a recourse claim where the duty of disclosure or the duty to report changes has been breached. Private use also has a tax side; the insurance aspects are set out in detail in the article on mixed use.
3. Keys, documents, parking – the conditions of theft cover
Theft is the area where internal procedures and the policy conditions literally meet. One Hungarian fleet casco condition, for example, requires the vehicle's keys and start cards to be stored so that no unauthorised person can access them, and the vehicle registration certificate, the ignition key and the certificate of title (törzskönyv) must not be left in the vehicle – and if they were in the vehicle at the time of the theft, the insurer is released from paying in proportion to the extent to which this contributed to the loss. So set down: where the keys are kept at the premises and at home, how many keys there are per vehicle and who holds them, what to do if a key is lost, where the vehicle is parked at night, and that the theft must also be reported to the police without delay, within the deadline set by the conditions – in the conditions quoted, within two working days at the latest. The other questions of theft losses are covered in a separate article in the knowledge base.
4. Claim reporting: an internal deadline shorter than the insurer's
The claim reporting deadline in casco conditions varies from insurer to insurer – twenty-four hours in the fleet conditions above, two working days in others – so the company's internal deadline should be shorter: the driver should report to the fleet manager on the same day, and the fleet manager reports the claim on the insurer's claims line or portal. Under Section 6:453 of the Hungarian Civil Code (Ptk.), late reporting has legal consequences if, as a result, material circumstances can no longer be established – which can easily happen with a dent that comes to light weeks later. On the MTPL side, failure to report a claim is a ground for a recourse claim under Section 34(1)(g) of the Gfbt. – to the extent that the omission affected the insurer's obligation to pay – and, if the keeper or the driver proves that the omission was not intentional, up to HUF 500,000. The rules should include: filling in the accident report form, photos, witnesses' details, calling the police in the event of personal injury or disputed liability, and that the driver makes no statement admitting liability at the scene. The internal claims procedure template sets out the steps in a form you can copy.
5. The procedure for the deductible and compensation
Write down what happens after damage has occurred: a written record, recording the circumstances, examining liability, and who decides on reimbursement. What the rules cannot do: they cannot establish stricter liability than the Mt. – a clause stating that “every deductible is borne by the driver” does not override the cap of four months' absence fee (távolléti díj) for negligent damage or the employer's burden of proof, and a deduction from wages requires the employee's consent. These limits are set out in detail in the article on passing on the deductible; you will find the answer to the tax questions of a waived deductible in the FAQ. The value of the rules here is predictability: they state in advance when the company examines liability and when it does not.
6. Prohibitions and who is responsible for the technical condition
A ban on alcohol and drugs, phone use, compliance with traffic rules – these are obvious, but they must be in writing, because casco conditions treat drink-driving as a ground for exemption, and Section 34(1)(c) of the Gfbt. makes the compensation paid recoverable from a drunk driver and also from the insured who handed over the driving to such a person – unless the insured proves that they could not have recognised the driver's condition. Also set down who is responsible for the vehicle's technical condition: the driver reports faults (tyres, brakes, lights), the company arranges the repair. Under Section 34(1)(e) of the Gfbt., the insurer can claim back the compensation from the keeper – up to HUF 1.5 million – if the accident was caused by the vehicle's seriously neglected technical condition, and casco conditions, too, recognise neglected technical condition and improper use as grounds for exemption. If telematics is used in the fleet, the rules should also include the data protection notice.
How should you introduce it?
Put it in writing, publish it in the manner customary at your workplace – e-mail, intranet, notice board – and draw up a handover record for each vehicle, with photos, the number of keys and any existing damage: this is the evidence both for a later claim and for any claim against the employee. A signed acknowledgement of receipt is not mandatory, but it makes proof easier. It is worth reviewing the insurance points of the rules when you switch insurer, because the claim reporting deadline and the list of grounds for exemption can vary from one set of conditions to another; if you let me know, I compile the relevant points of the conditions in force for the comparison. The rules do not bind the insurer, but they help you prove your case – the insurer pays only for what is an insured event under your contract.
A question tailored to your own fleet's vehicle use policy? Book a free 20-minute consultation →
Sources
- Labour Code (Mt.) – Act I of 2012, Section 17 (employer's internal rules), Section 179 (the employee's liability for damage) (njt.hu)
- MTPL Act (Gfbt.) – Act LXII of 2009, Section 34 (the insurer's right of recourse) (njt.hu)
- Hungarian Civil Code (Ptk.) – Act V of 2013, Section 6:453 (reporting the insured event), Section 6:464 (exemption of the insurer) (njt.hu)
- Alfa Biztosító – Fleet casco customer information and policy conditions (FLC-SZ-230801): insured, exemptions, loss-prevention obligation, claim reporting
