Key point: a lower offer is not itself proof of error or unjustified refusal. It may result from missing evidence, rejected causation, a different score, pre-existing health or the injured person's contribution. However, a reduction should not remain merely a number: the calculation and rejected elements should be explained in writing.
01 / Starting point
The insurer's offer is not automatically
the final compensation.
The injured person's request, the insurer's offer and the finally determined compensation are distinct. The insurer reviews liability, evidence, extent of harm and its relationship with the accident, then states the amount considered justified.
Disagreement may be clarified, supplemented with evidence, negotiated or challenged. Where only part is disputed, the law provides for payment of the undisputed amount. See the insurer's obligations after REMA.
02 / Proof of harm
Medical documentation is incomplete.
A common cause of reduction is inability to follow the injuries and their course completely. Late mention, undocumented treatment or missing investigations can make attribution difficult.
- first-presentation records and initial investigations;
- discharge summaries, medical letters and recommendations;
- specialist reviews and later investigations;
- evidence of treatment, rehabilitation and medical devices;
- records of complications or permanent consequences;
- documents supporting expenses and other claimed losses.
The file should show the chronology from accident and symptom onset through diagnosis, treatment and progress.
03 / Medical attribution
Causation is not established
for every diagnosis.
A diagnosis after the accident is not automatically accident-caused. Timing, mechanism, location, investigations, progress and alternative explanations are assessed. An insurer may exclude an insufficiently related item, but should identify the inconsistency and evidence rather than merely invoke “lack of causation”. See causation in medico-legal assessment.
04 / Prior health
There are pre-existing conditions.
Earlier disorders may affect progress, rehabilitation and imaging interpretation. They do not automatically exclude compensation, but must be distinguished from a new injury and accident-related aggravation.
A reduction may be justified where part of the medical picture reflects natural progression. Merely identifying a prior condition is insufficient; the insurer should analyse whether and to what extent the accident produced a real change. See pre-existing injuries after a road accident.
05 / Timing
The assessment was made before
progress stabilised.
Some consequences are apparent immediately; others become clear only after treatment and rehabilitation. An early assessment may miss a later complication or the permanent nature of a limitation. This does not mean every claim should be postponed, but new documents may justify review. See complications and permanent sequelae.
06 / REMA assessment
There are differences in
the trauma score.
Differences may arise from the documents available, injuries accepted as causal, the schedule position selected or aggregation rules. A different total should explain the injuries retained, positions and ranges used, exclusions and reasons. A global reduction without calculation cannot be meaningfully checked. See how the trauma score is calculated.
07 / Statutory formula
The wrong traumatic-point value
was used.
Under Law no. 132/2017, one traumatic point equals twice the national gross minimum basic salary at the accident date. The reference date is not the REMA report, offer or payment date.
- the exact accident date;
- the minimum salary applicable then;
- the score retained;
- adjustments and their basis;
- whether physical suffering is separated from other losses.
A wrong reference value or date can reduce the result even where the medical score is correct.
08 / Separate components
Some losses must be
proven separately.
The trauma score quantifies harm connected with physical suffering. It does not automatically prove medical expenses, lost earnings, transport, third-party care, home adaptations or other financial or non-financial losses. Each category needs appropriate evidence such as invoices, medical recommendations, income or tax records and sick-leave proof.
A sum may be rejected not because that kind of harm is impossible, but because its existence, necessity or extent is insufficiently evidenced.
09 / Own contribution
The injured person contributed
to the accident or harm.
Where the injured person culpably contributed to the accident or increased the harm, liability is limited to the part attributable to the other participant. Traffic conduct, protective equipment or failure to follow medical advice may be relevant, but no circumstance automatically justifies a standard reduction.
The insurer should explain how the conduct caused or increased the consequences and how the reduction percentage was determined.
10 / Practical review
What to check in the offer.
- injuries and consequences accepted;
- excluded diagnoses and reasons;
- total score and schedule positions;
- point value and reference date;
- adjustments for prior health;
- contributory-fault percentage and reasons;
- other accepted or rejected losses;
- undisputed amount and payment date;
- documents said to be missing.
Particular scrutiny is appropriate where the offer lacks detail or sources, ignores relevant records, excludes injuries without explanation, applies an unexplained percentage, or uses the wrong point value. The law provides a 0.2% daily penalty where statutory conditions for improper performance, unjustified reduction or delay are met.
11 / If you disagree
Steps when the offer
appears too low.
- 1
Request the full calculation
Ask in writing for reasons and sources for every exclusion or reduction.
- 2
Compare it with the evidence
Check chronology, REMA, score, point value and separately evidenced losses.
- 3
Complete the file
Submit relevant missing or new records and request review.
- 4
Request the undisputed sum
If only the difference is disputed, seek the recognised part and read acceptance documents carefully.
- 5
Use the appropriate route
After insurer clarification, ASF, SAL-Fin, assisted negotiation or court may be considered.
Medico-legal assessment can clarify injury, causation and score. Contest strategy and legal effects of signed documents may require individual legal advice.
Conclusion: most differences arise at the intersection of medical documentation, causation, trauma score, prior health, proof of other losses and contributory fault. A lower offer may be justified, but the reasoning must be verifiable.
12 / Frequently asked questions
Important clarifications.
Can the insurer lawfully offer less than the amount claimed?+
Yes, where the difference follows from liability, evidence and proven harm. A bodily injury offer must still show the detailed calculation and reference sources, and any full or partial rejection must be reasoned in writing.
Does the REMA report require the insurer to pay exactly the stated score?+
It is important medical evidence, but the final amount depends on the whole file. A different score, adjustment or exclusion should be concretely explained by reference to the records and method.
Do pre-existing injuries automatically exclude compensation?+
No. Natural progression, new injury and accident-related aggravation must be distinguished. A global exclusion without that analysis may be insufficiently justified.
Does failure to wear a seat belt automatically reduce compensation?+
No. A real contribution to causing or increasing the harm and the proportion of its effect must be established individually and reasoned.
What if only part of the compensation is disputed?+
The undisputed sum should be paid before the difference is resolved, subject to Law no. 132/2017. Acceptance documents should be read carefully.
Can compensation be reviewed if new medical documents appear?+
Yes. ASF Rule no. 20/2017 permits review based on later evidence. The insurer must respond within 10 working days by paying the justified difference or giving a reasoned refusal.
13 / Sources
Framework consulted.
- Law no. 132/2017
- ASF Rule no. 20/2017
- Joint ASF/Ministry of Health Order no. 1/2,293/2022
- ASF complaints information
- SAL-Fin consumer information
General information about the Romanian framework, not legal advice. It does not guarantee compensation or amount.