Study of the difference between the assessment of bodily injury by insurance entities and by extrajudicial experts advice in Valladolid during the years 2021 and 2022. Presentation of a comparison methodology

Abstract

Introduction

After the approval of Law 35/2015, the insurer is obliged to submit motivated offers in cases of traffic accidents and the possibility of requesting an extrajudicial expert advice from the Institutes of Legal Medicine in case of disagreement with the previous one.

Objective

The objective of this paper is to describe the differences between the motivated offers of insurers and the forensic reports of the 409 extrajudicial expert advice requested to the Institute of Legal Medicine in Valladolid from 2021–2022 and to propose a methodology for comparing.

Material and methods

All extrajudicial expert advice data from 2021 to 2022 was obtained, analysing the days of personal injury and sequelae and translating them into compensation variables.

Results

Forensic reports are more favourable for traffic injuries in about 81% of cases, granting on average an amount of almost €1400 more. This difference is mainly due to a greater consideration of sequelae, as well as a higher proportion of days of moderate particular damage in the forensic report. However, this difference is more or less accentuated, depending on the company that makes the motivated offer.

Conclusion

Translating the data from the forensic reports and motivated offers to compensation variables, allows us to make a comparison of the differences between both reports, observing that the forensic reports are more favourable than those issued by the insurers, at least in the province studied, and more studies are needed to have a more complete view.