Contra-expertise in damage insurance: how to get a fair second opinion

What is contra-expertise and when do you have the right to it?

When you claim under your buildings or contents insurance, the insurer almost always sends a damage assessor to inspect the scene. This expert investigates the cause, extent and quantum of the loss and reports back to the insurer. But what if you fundamentally disagree with that expert's conclusions? Perhaps you believe the cause is different, the repair estimate is too low, or the insurer is applying an underinsurance penalty. Fortunately, you are not stuck. Dutch law grants you a clear right: contra-expertise. Article 7:959 of the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek, BW) states that for any damage insurance you may always appoint your own independent expert to take a second look. This covers buildings and contents insurance, but also other non-life insurances such as car insurance and personal liability. Even if you have just arrived as an expat, this right applies to you; read more about damage insurance for expats.

Invoking contra-expertise is not a sign of distrust; it is a normal part of the claims process. Thousands of Dutch consumers use this legal option every year, often successfully: in many cases it results in a higher payout or even overturns a previously rejected claim. Consider a scenario where the insurer attributes water damage to inherent defect due to poor maintenance, while your contra-expert demonstrates that the cause was an unforeseeable pipe burst.

When can you use contra-expertise?

You can call on contra-expertise at any time during the claims process. Typically this happens when the insurer's expert issues a report you disagree with, but you can also appoint your own expert earlier if you are uncomfortable during the initial inspection. It is wise not to wait until the insurer makes a final negative decision, because by then traces of the damage may already be cleaned up. Especially for complex claims like water damage, fire damage or burglary, a second opinion is often worthwhile. Learn for instance how a water damage claim is assessed in practice and why contra-expertise can be useful.

• Your claim has been rejected on the grounds of alleged inherent defect or lack of maintenance.
• The insurer offers a payout that you believe is far too low, for example due to an incorrect market value calculation.
• The expert claims you are underinsured and disproportionally reduces the indemnity.
• There is disagreement about the exact extent of the damage, such as a dispute over a water leak from neighbours or repair costs for a storm-damaged fence.
• The cause of the damage remains unclear or the insurer refuses due to lack of physical evidence, such as in cases of theft without forced entry or hit-and-run parking damage where strict evidence rules apply.

How contra-expertise works in practice

The contra-expertise process is less complicated than it sounds. Once you decide to appoint your own expert, you follow a few clear steps. Crucially, you must notify the insurer immediately of your intention, so that your expert gains the same standing as the insurer's expert. In practice, many consumers find that their independent expert removes obstacles and negotiates on the basis of technical knowledge. Here is an overview of the steps.

Who pays the costs of contra-expertise?

The million-dollar question for many consumers is: what does contra-expertise cost, and who foots the bill? The answer again lies in article 7:959 BW: the insurer is obliged to refund the reasonable costs of your contra-expert. The lawmaker introduced this rule to prevent insurers from discouraging consumers with a cost argument. However, the term 'reasonable' is key: a excessively expensive expert bureau or unnecessary extra research may partly be for your own account. In practice, the costs of a contra-expert for a buildings or contents insurance are almost always reimbursed, provided you notified the insurer beforehand and the costs are proportionate to the damage. For a buildings insurance, expert fees typically range from €500 to €1,500 depending on complexity. The same applies to contents claims. It is advisable to ask for a cost estimate in advance and discuss it with your expert.

Should the insurer unexpectedly refuse to pay the costs, you can object through the insurer's internal complaints procedure. If you get no satisfaction there, you can turn to the Klachteninstituut Financiële Dienstverlening (KiFiD). Most insurers, however, pay the invoice directly after receiving the expert report, as long as the costs are considered market-conform. Costs of a potential arbiter also fall within the scope of article 7:959 BW.

What if the experts cannot agree?

The vast majority of contra-expertises result in an amicable settlement between insurer and policyholder. But what if the two experts remain firmly opposed? The law provides a backstop: parties can engage a third independent expert—an arbiter. The arbiter studies both reports and issues a binding decision. This ruling is binding, meaning both you and the insurer must comply. It is therefore essential that you have confidence in the chosen arbiter.

Sometimes insurer and policyholder jointly pick an arbiter, but you can also ask the court to appoint an expert. Many policy wordings also contain a clause on 'binding advice' for disputes. So check your policy to see which procedure applies. If a dispute persists even after binding advice, you can present the case to KiFiD or ultimately the courts. Keep in mind that the costs of an arbiter procedure are generally also borne by the insurer if the procedure stems from the contra-expertise.

A practical example: suppose after a fire the insurer's expert concludes the damage amounts to €30,000 based on market value. Your contra-expert argues that reinstatement on a new-for-old basis is possible and that the costs are €45,000. If the experts cannot agree, the arbiter determines which standpoint is most reasonable, for instance by examining the policy conditions and the factual state of the building before the loss.

Common mistakes in contra-expertise

Although contra-expertise is a powerful right, consumers sometimes make mistakes that complicate the process or reduce the chance of success. Below we list the most common pitfalls so you can avoid them and get the most out of your second opinion.

• Waiting too long to engage: do not let the insurer fob you off; appoint your expert as soon as you doubt the assessment. The longer you wait, the harder it is to assess the damage.
• No written confirmation: a phone call to the insurer is insufficient. Always ensure you have an email or letter as proof that you exercised your contra-expertise right.
• Carrying out your own repairs: do not start repair work before your expert has seen the damage. The insurer may then argue that the original situation can no longer be verified.
• Choosing an expert who is not truly independent: some bureaus work for both insurers and private individuals. Ask explicitly whether the expert currently has assignments from your insurer.
• Not discussing costs upfront: if your expert charges €200 per hour without you having cleared this with the insurer, you risk part of the bill landing on your own plate.

Step-by-step: starting contra-expertise

Do you disagree with your insurer's damage assessor? Use this practical step-by-step plan to take action today. The process is manageable and you are not alone. After following these steps, you will have the best chance of a fair settlement. If you then want to review your overall insurance package, a commission-free insurance review or an annual damage insurance check can be useful.