The friendly assessment form, also known as Cid – direct compensation agreement, is the document that is filled in and signed by the drivers of the vehicles involved in a road accident. It is only useful in cases of damage to vehicles.
Serve for speed up compensation procedures by the insurance company to the person who did not cause the accident. The insurance company proceeds by making an offer of compensation, which must arrive within 60 days of receiving the form, or 30 if the CID is signed by both drivers.
What to watch out for
It is important to know, after the accident, that what is written and entered within the friendly statement form must be truthful and correspond to what actually happened. It is in fact the confessional statement which could possibly be used in court and must be completed and signed by the drivers involved in the accident. For this reason it is essential to be careful.
The sentence number 3676 of the Court of Cassation, which takes up a decision dated 2019, underlines how absolutely priority it is that such declarations are plausible and absolutely compatible with the damage actually reported by the vehicles involved in the accident.
The experts of the online periodical All-In Giuridica of the SEAC, as stated by ANSA, have commented the effects of the principle that the Court of Cassation has expressedand they asserted: “Any assessment of the confessional scope of the Cid form must be considered precluded by the existence of an ascertained objective incompatibility between the fact as described in this document and the consequences of the accident as ascertained in court”.
The case
The case to which ANSA refers had been submitted first to the Justice of the Peace and then to the Court, the claims for compensation that had been brought against the insurance company by a truck driver, who had died in the meantime, were rejected, despite the subject’s admission of guiltas described in the friendly statement.
The accident concerned the damage to a car parked in the courtyard of the house by the same truck driver on board his heavy vehicle, who had hit it.
The problem? Once the expert appointed by the insurance to verify the damages left, he pointed out how much the damages reported by the car were incompatible with the description that had been written and signed in the Cid formincompatibility accepted both in the first and in the second degree of judgement.
In the sentence, the Ermellinis explained: “As for the confessor value of the friendly accident reportthat the appellant claims to have been neglected, it is a principle of law that ‘any assessment of the confessional scope of the accident report form must be considered precluded by the existence of an established objective incompatibility between the fact as described in that document and the consequences of the accident as ascertained in court’. (Court of Cassation 8451/2019). Is that incompatibility it was, as has been said, ascertained by the expert witness, to which the trial judge referred”.
