Insurers save on financial commissioner – Kommersant

Insurers’ expenses on court decisions in the OSAGO segment were twice as high as those incurred in pre-trial settlement of disputes in the financial ombudsman service. According to experts, this is due to a more formal procedure and additional costs when going through a case in court. At the same time, they assure that such disputes will not decrease, therefore pre-trial settlement is beneficial for both the client and the insurer.

In 2022, the costs of insurers related to OSAGO court decisions turned out to be twice as high as the costs associated with payments on decisions of the Financial Ombudsman, follows from the ARIA data. Thus, the average amount of overhead costs for insurers’ payments under OSAGO, made by decision of the Ombudsman, amounted to 37.2 thousand rubles, while the average amount of additional expenses incurred by market participants on the basis of court decisions amounted to 80.6 thousand rubles. At the same time, according to the ARIA, the average payment under OSAGO, made on the basis of the decision of the financial commissioner, is only 15% higher than the average payment made by a court decision (46 thousand rubles).

According to Evgeny Ufimtsev, president of the Russian Union of Motor Insurers, statistics show that the institution of a financial ombudsman helps to achieve a balance of interests of subjects of insurance relations in the event of disputes over OSAGO. An equally important factor for the consumer is the term for the consideration of disputes by the Financial Ombudsman in comparison with the consideration of the dispute by the court: if the consumer receives the decision of the Financial Ombudsman within 30 days, then the consideration of the dispute by the court can take months, he notes. The deadlines for consideration of applications, even if an examination is necessary (a common situation in disputes on OSAGO), are rigidly set and cannot increase the consideration of a complaint by more than ten days, Sergey Uchitel, partner at the Pen & Paper Bar Association, clarifies.

Lawyers note that such a difference in costs is understandable. “The judicial procedure for resolving disputes is almost always lengthy, it can take from several months to six months, in some cases the insurer can involve representatives to conduct a dispute, which also increases the cost of consideration, and the costs of examinations can also be included here. The amount of sanctions that the court takes against insurers, as a rule, is higher than in the pre-trial resolution of the dispute, which also affects the total amount of expenses for the payment of compensation, ”explains Mr. Uchitel.

The judicial system is not always interested in expedited consideration and often approaches the consideration of a case more formally, confirms Ilya Zharsky, managing partner of the Veta expert group.

One of the tasks of creating a financial ombudsman service was to reduce legal costs by resolving most of the disputes out of court, says Alexei Yanin, managing director for ratings of insurance and investment companies at Expert RA.

At the same time, experts note that the demand for the services of a financial commissioner will remain relevant. The OSAGO market, like all other segments of the Russian economy, cannot but experience the consequences of an unstable economic situation, reminds Mr. Uchitel. In the case of OSAGO, additional aggravating factors are a significant increase in prices for spare parts and components, as well as their continued shortage. All this causes an increase in the number of delays in payments, refusals, violations of the terms of circulation, he notes.

At the same time, the financial ombudsman is more interested in the consumer’s benefit, since he has a direct income from this, continues Mr. Zharsky.

Given the magnitude of the cost of litigation, it makes sense for insurance companies to also resolve disputes at the level of the financial ombudsman, without going to a lengthy judicial procedure, Sergey Uchitel adds. According to him, the only benefit of “payment through the court” for an unscrupulous insurer may be a delay in the time of payment.

Julia Poslavskaya