According to article 7: 959 of the Dutch Civil Code, the reasonable costs incurred to establish damage are borne by the insurer. Insurers can not just refuse a (reasonable) compensation for a counter-expert. That they sometimes do to do, appears from signals that arrive at the Consumers’ Association. For example, Promovendum (after a lot of gesteggel) established the water damage of an insured € 1300 lower than the actual recovery costs, despite the repair notes. The damage report of a counter-expert, which came out at a much higher amount, was ignored. Moreover, the costs of that expert, € 1000, were not reimbursed.
Doctoral candidate, who, like National Academic, is not affiliated with the Dutch Association of Insurers, states that it does not act against the rules, but does state that he will ‘review his conditions’ again. At the request of the Consumers Association, the regulator of the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) examines the working methods of the company.
Most car and home insurers do reimburse the ‘reasonable costs’ of counter-experts, according to a tour of the Consumers’ Association. Sometimes it is the question of what is reasonable. Companies often assume the rates that they themselves pay to their own experts. The Consumers Association thinks that unfair, because insurers can agree price agreements to make and individual consumers can not get these lower rates.
Incidentally, insurers only point out to their customers the right of contradictionexpertise. An online survey of the Consumer Association among 750 consumers shows that only 6% were pointed out by that insurer. 70% did not say that used to be happened. The remaining 24% agreed with the claim or had no counter-expert needed.