As a fleet manager or company director, sooner or later you face the question: the driver has wrecked the car, casco pays, but the deductible, the lost days and the deterioration of the claims ratio stay with the company – how much of this can be passed on to the employee, and how? As a broker, I see that at this point most companies either claim too much or proceed unlawfully – for example by deducting the amount from wages unilaterally – and in the end what remains is not the loss but a labour dispute. The answer is not in the policy conditions but in the Labour Code; the fleet deductible is just one application of it.
- Under Section 179 of the Labour Code (Mt.), the employee is liable if they did not act as would generally be expected in the given situation – the employer must prove this, the damage and the causal link.
- For negligent damage, compensation is capped at four months' absence fee (távolléti díj; up to eight months under a collective agreement); for intentional or grossly negligent damage, the full loss can be claimed.
- The deductible cannot be deducted from wages automatically: under Section 161 of the Mt., the employer's claim can be deducted only with the employee's consent; otherwise the route is a payment demand or the courts.
What is the company's loss, and what is not?
If there is casco (comprehensive motor insurance), the company's loss is typically the deductible, plus whatever the conditions do not reimburse: depreciation, the cost of a replacement car not included in the conditions, lost working days. If there is no casco, or the insurer is released from paying – for example in the case of drunk or grossly negligent driving, where the burden of proof is on the insurer – the full repair cost is the company's loss. Whether a later premium increase caused by a worse claims ratio can be claimed is uncertain; do not rely on it. Damage caused to third parties is settled by compulsory motor third-party liability insurance (MTPL); in the cases listed in Section 34 of the MTPL Act (Gfbt.) – for example drunk driving, driving without a licence, intentional damage – the insurer can, however, recover the amount paid from the driver up to the statutory limit, so this can also reach the driver directly. For anything that falls outside MTPL – for example uninsured damage caused to a third party – the employer is liable towards the injured party under Section 6:540(1) of the Hungarian Civil Code (Ptk.), and the company, too, can pass this on to the employee only within the framework of the Mt. How strategic the size of the deductible is in a fleet is discussed in the article on deductible policy.
Mt. Section 179: fault, burden of proof, cap
Under Section 179(1) of Act I of 2012 on the Labour Code, an employee must compensate for damage caused by breaching obligations arising from the employment relationship if they did not act as would generally be expected in the given situation. Under paragraph (2), the employer must prove this, the damage and the causal link – with a dent found in a car park, this is not necessarily straightforward. Paragraph (3) limits the amount: compensation may not exceed four months' absence fee (távolléti díj – the pay base the Labour Code uses for such calculations); in the case of intentional or grossly negligent damage, however, the full loss must be compensated. Under Section 191(2), a collective agreement may raise the cap for negligent damage to no more than eight months' absence fee. Under paragraph (4), no compensation is due for damage that was not foreseeable at the time it was caused, that was caused by the employer's culpable conduct, or that results from the employer's failure to mitigate the loss – if, for example, the company sent the car out on worn tyres, this counts in the employee's favour. Damage to the vehicle typically does not fall under the “safekeeping” liability for shortages, but under the general, fault-based rule.
Passing on the deductible: what is allowed, and how?
The deductible is the company's loss, so it can be claimed within the above framework – no more, and not automatically. An internal policy can set out the procedure (reporting, written record, who decides), but in itself it does not create stricter liability than the Mt.: a clause of the type “the deductible is borne by the driver for every claim” does not override the four-month cap for negligent damage or the burden of proof. On deductions, Section 161 of the Mt. is clear: deductions from wages may be made on the basis of legislation or – up to the portion of wages exempt from deductions – an enforceable decision, while the employer may deduct its own claim only with the employee's consent, up to the portion of wages exempt from deductions. Without consent, under Section 285(2) of the Mt., a claim not exceeding three times the statutory minimum wage can be enforced by a written payment demand; above that, the route is the courts. In practice this means: when damage occurs, a written record should be prepared; once liability and the amount have been established, a written agreement on how the loss is to be reimbursed; and, for a deduction, the employee's express consent – not a general signature given years earlier at the end of the policy document.
Where is the line between negligence and gross negligence?
This question decides between the four-month cap and the full loss, and it is settled not at the company's discretion but by case law. A careless manoeuvre while reversing or an overlooked right of way is typically simple negligence. Drunk or drug-impaired driving, significant speeding, or a deliberate breach of an express prohibition – for example a private trip despite the policy prohibiting it – point towards gross negligence, and here the casco conditions typically also see a ground for exemption of the insurer. In a disputed case, the company should not classify the conduct unilaterally: the written record, the photos, the trip log and the telematics data are what will count later in a labour dispute. The article on driver discipline discusses how to build driver rules and consequences that motivate rather than punish, and the article on mixed private and business use covers how damage arising during private use is assessed.
What should you do in practice?
Draw up a one-page internal claims procedure: what the driver does at the scene, whom they report to, who fills in the written record, and when a decision is made about reimbursement – you will find a template in the internal claims procedure article. Report the claim on the insurer's claims line, and keep the question of the deductible separate from the claims settlement: the insurer is not interested in who pays the deductible, but the labour court is. As a broker, I help where I can with interpreting the casco conditions – grounds for exemption, calculation of the deductible, depreciation; the employment-law steps and the wording of the agreement are best discussed with an employment lawyer. The insurer pays only for what is an insured event under your contract – and only what the Mt. permits can be claimed from the employee.
A question tailored to your own fleet's claims procedure? Book a free 20-minute consultation →
Sources
- Labour Code (Mt.) – Act I of 2012, Sections 161, 179, 191 and 285 (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 6:540 (the employer's liability for damage caused by employees) (njt.hu)
