Motor claims have long been assessed through the cost of repair. Electric vehicles are exposing the limits of that model. The defining variable is increasingly time.
For Leigh Broomhead (pictured), head of insurance at Europcar, the shift is already clear. “Typically, we have seen around a 40% increase in the length of repair versus an ICE equivalent,” he said.
That increase is doing more than extending repair cycles. It is changing how loss is experienced and, increasingly, how it should be measured. “It is much more than just the metal cost,” Broomhead said.
The increase in repair duration reflects a broader adjustment across the ecosystem. Body shops are still adapting to EV-specific infrastructure, while parts availability remains inconsistent, particularly for newer models and manufacturers.
“A lot of the delays experienced are primarily driven by increased wait times for parts,” Broomhead said. Vehicles remain off the road for longer, compounding costs beyond the repair itself.
That impact flows through the entire claims process. Extended downtime ties up fleets, delays resolution and introduces cost pressures that sit outside traditional repair models.
As repair cycles lengthen, the cost of inactivity is becoming more significant. For commercial customers in particular, time off the road translates directly into lost revenue.
“Increased downtime means that customers, specifically more towards the commercial space, are losing out on revenue opportunities,” Broomhead said.
That changes the calculation as total claims cost is no longer defined solely by repair spend, but by how long a vehicle is unavailable and the financial consequences that follow.
In many cases, mobility and downtime are still treated as secondary considerations, rather than core cost drivers. That gap is becoming harder to ignore as EV repair cycles extend.
This challenge is compounded by inconsistency across the market. EV supply, repair capability and vehicle availability vary by region, influencing both cost and claims outcomes. Without established benchmarks equivalent to those used for internal combustion vehicles, pricing can also vary widely.
“It is difficult, a bit like the Wild West in some instances,” he said, describing a market still searching for consistency.
These pressures are also changing the role of replacement vehicles. What was once treated as an ancillary service is becoming central to both cost control and customer experience.
Historically, many policies included courtesy car provision. That model is becoming less common, shifting responsibility towards external providers.
“Insurance companies are not really comfortable with offering that as a solution anymore,” Broomhead said.
Mobility is no longer simply about customer convenience. It is a lever for managing total claims cost, particularly as repair times extend. Faster delivery, better vehicle matching and consistent pricing are becoming critical in limiting overall exposure.
Progress, however, remains uneven. Some insurers have moved early to integrate EV mobility into their claims strategies, while others are still reacting to changes in their policy books rather than anticipating them.
What emerges is a claims environment where time, availability and coordination matter as much as repair cost. EVs are not simply introducing new technology; they are reshaping how loss is measured.
The implication is clear: a model built primarily around repair cost is becoming less sufficient as downtime and mobility costs rise.
As the transition accelerates towards 2030, the question is no longer whether EVs will change motor claims, but whether the industry is ready to price and manage them differently.
