Everyone knows drink-driving and driving without a licence from casco's “won't pay” list. Many disputes, however, arise not from these but from the grey zone: the worn tyre that “would have lasted until winter”, the oil-pressure warning light that has been on for weeks, the furniture travelling on the roof rack under a loose strap, driving twenty kilometres per hour over the limit. The list of exemptions in the policy conditions is longer than you might think – but exemption is not automatic: the insurer has to prove it, and gross negligence has a legal meaning. As a broker, I would like to show where this boundary lies, because most such disputes can be prevented when the policy is taken out, by reading the policy conditions and with a few routines.
- Under Section 6:464 of the Hungarian Civil Code (Ptk.), the insurer is released from paying if it proves that the damage was caused unlawfully, intentionally or through gross negligence by the policyholder, the insured person or a person specified in the policy conditions – so the burden of proof lies with the insurer, and exemption is not the same as exclusion.
- Hungarian casco policy conditions typically list what they regard as grossly negligent: a seriously neglected mechanical condition, tyres or brakes that do not meet the regulations, non-standard accessories and fuel, continuing to drive after damage – and in some policy conditions also ignoring warning lights, an unsecured load and improper towing.
- Speeding, using a phone or falling asleep at the wheel is a grey zone: according to the case law of the Kúria (Hungary's supreme court), gross negligence is a conspicuous neglect of care that comes close to intent and must relate to the occurrence of the damage – a mere breach of a rule is not enough in itself, and in a dispute the assessment is for the court.
Exemption, not exclusion: who has to prove it?
Mixing up the two concepts is the most common mistake. An exclusion means that an event is not an insured event in the first place – damage sustained during a race, wear and tear, a breakdown due to lack of maintenance; in such cases it is up to you to show that the damage falls within the cover. Exemption, by contrast, comes into play with damage that is otherwise covered: under Section 6:464(1) of the Hungarian Civil Code (Ptk.), the insurer is released from its obligation to pay if it proves that the damage was caused unlawfully, through intentional or grossly negligent conduct, by the policyholder or the insured person, a relative living in the same household as them, or an employee, member or agent of theirs holding a position specified in the policy conditions. Paragraph (2) applies the same rule to a breach of the duty to prevent and mitigate damage. The key word is “proves”: exemption is the insurer's assertion, and it is for the insurer to substantiate it. So with drink-driving the rule is not that the insurer “won't pay”, but that the insurer may be released from paying if it proves that the driver was under the influence and that this was linked to the damage. The exclusions map shows the full picture; this article focuses on the grey zone of exemption.
What do policy conditions name as grossly negligent?
Hungarian casco policy conditions typically do not leave it to the courts to decide what counts as gross negligence; instead, they give a list. One Hungarian set of conditions, for example, classes it as grossly negligent if, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was in a seriously neglected mechanical condition; if its tyres or braking system did not meet the regulations; if non-standard accessories, fuel or lubricants were used; or if the vehicle was driven in water as deep as its ground clearance or deeper. Another set of conditions puts in the same category a seriously neglected mechanical condition and continuing to drive the vehicle after mechanical damage in such a way that further damage results. Some policy conditions also include ignoring the warning lights on the dashboard, a load or towed trailer that is improperly secured or heavier than permitted, and, in the case of theft, leaving the key in the vehicle – what exactly your own contract says is worth looking up using the steps in the guide to reading policy conditions.
The way alcohol is dealt with is also instructive: some policy conditions treat a higher blood alcohol level as an exclusion and a lower level of impairment as gross negligence – in other words, the same conduct may fall into one category or the other depending on its degree, each with a different allocation of the burden of proof. The thresholds vary from insurer to insurer, so I deliberately give no figures here.
The grey zone: speeding, phones, falling asleep
Whatever is not on the list is governed by the general legal concept. Decision No. Jpe.I.60.009/2022/10 of the Uniformity Complaint Council of the Kúria (Hungary's supreme court), which is binding for the uniform application of the law (given in a property insurance case, but on Section 6:464 of the Ptk. in general), states – according to a 2025 analysis in the journal Kártérítési és Biztosítási Jog (Compensation and Insurance Law) – that gross negligence is a neglect of care so conspicuous that it comes close to intent, and that gross negligence must relate not merely to the breach of a rule but to the occurrence of the damage. In plain terms: the fact that someone broke a rule of the Hungarian Highway Code (KRESZ) is not, in itself, gross negligence; the conduct has to be flagrantly reckless, and it has to be what caused the damage. A moderate excess over the speed limit on a dry motorway may be judged differently from doubling the speed limit in a built-up area; a momentary lapse of attention is different from watching videos while driving. Where the line lies is weighed by the court case by case – the lists in the policy conditions form part of the contract, and the Kúria expressly laid down the above rule “in the absence of a different agreement between the parties”, which means that the cases named in your own policy conditions count; it is, however, for the insurer to prove that the named conduct actually occurred in the specific case and that it caused the damage. This cuts both ways: it is neither certain that an item on the list will lead to exemption in every case, nor that conduct not on the list never will.
In practice, the insurer works from police, expert and service records: dashcam and on-board data, the tread depth of the tyres at the inspection, skid marks, photos of the load. If it rejects the claim on grounds of exemption, ask in writing which clause of the policy conditions and what evidence it bases this on – the article on reasons for rejection covers this set of questions in detail. The next steps are the insurer's complaints procedure, then the Financial Arbitration Board (PBT) or the courts; the MNB (Hungary's central bank and financial supervisor) does not decide individual claims disputes.
Maintenance, loads, towing: the preventable part
Most of the items on the exemption lists are about the car's condition and routines rather than driving style – in other words, they can be prevented. A valid roadworthiness test does not in itself clear you: if the tyre tread depth at the inspection is below the legal minimum, or the brakes were demonstrably faulty, the date of the test is no argument. A warning light that you “didn't get round to” having checked for weeks is, without a documented service history, strong evidence in the insurer's hands. For loads, the benchmark is the manufacturer's load capacity and how the load is secured; for trailers, the permitted towing weight – the article on trailers also covers the insurance side of this. With modified cars, non-standard parts are doubly sensitive: the relationship between tuning and insurance is covered in a separate article.
What should you do in practice?
- Read the exemption clause in your own policy conditions – the list varies from insurer to insurer, and this is the part most people skip.
- Keep your service history: invoices for tyre changes, brake repairs and garage visits after warning lights came on – in a claim, this is your evidence that you took the care that can reasonably be expected.
- Loads and towing: the manufacturer's figures, proper securing, and only use that has been declared and is stated in the contract.
- After an accident, do not speculate in the report: record the facts accurately; classifying conduct as gross negligence is not your job, nor the police officer's.
- If your claim is rejected, ask for written reasons, and check whether the insurer relies on exemption (which it has to prove) or on an exclusion.
Damage-prevention routines are collected in the article on damage prevention for drivers. In a claim, the primary route for reporting is the insurer's claims line; if a case gets stuck or disputed, I help where I can– in interpreting the policy conditions and in getting your questions to the insurer in the appropriate form.
Have a question specific to your own policy conditions? book a free 20-minute consultation →
Sources
- Hungarian Civil Code (Ptk., Act V of 2013) Sections 6:463–6:464 – duty to prevent and mitigate damage, exemption of the insurer from its obligation to pay
- Generali – Special conditions for vehicle casco insurance (JCKF29), Chapters VI–VII: exclusions and exemption (mechanical condition, tyres, braking system, non-standard accessories, driving in water)
- UNIQA – Multi Casco Plus insurance: customer information and general terms and conditions (in force from 23 September 2022), 7.4.2: exemption (neglected mechanical condition, continuing to drive after damage)
- László Hargitai: “Gross negligence: a grave concern for legal practitioners and the legal public” – Kártérítési és Biztosítási Jog (Compensation and Insurance Law journal), 2025 (Kúria Jpe.I.60.009/2022/10)
- MNB – Financial Arbitration Board (PBT)
- Kúria (Hungary's Supreme Court), Jpe.I.60.009/2022/10 (legal-uniformity ruling) – unless agreed otherwise, gross negligence must relate to the loss itself
