Insurers sent for repairs

Insurers are required to provide a referral for repairs in virtually any case, except for the desire of the victim to receive an insurance payment. Also, the insured can claim damages if he made the repair himself. The Supreme Court (SC RF) came to such conclusions. Insurers believe that the explanations “look categorical” and complicate their relationship with customers. Lawyers add that the recommendations do not solve the key problems of the segment.

The Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation adopted a resolution on the application by the courts of the legislation on OSAGO (available to Kommersant). Thus, the insurer will be obliged to provide compensation in kind if the victim insists on it, since he can force the company to make repairs, follows from the decision. The plenum also recorded that the insurer’s technical service station (STO) violation of the repair deadlines, the existence of disagreements between the service station and the insurer, etc., do not relieve it from the obligation to provide in-kind compensation, and in case of inadequate service quality, issue a referral for repairs again. At the same time, the victim may demand an insurance payment instead of natural compensation or compensation for losses if he independently made repairs, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation concluded.

Tatyana Nikitina, senior director of ratings for financial companies at the NRA, believes that the resolution clarifies the nuances of the settlement of losses and compensation for damages under OSAGO, which were previously either not disclosed or allowed abuse – the process of settling losses should become clearer. A plus for the victim is the possibility of an alternative choice of how to protect their civil rights, since each situation is individual, adds Andrey Lyamzin, a lawyer at the Sfera Zashchita law office.

However, insurers reacted to the clarifications with caution.

Thus, the general director of Sovcombank Insurance, Igor Lappi, believes that the insurer has an “excessive obligation to organize the repair of any vehicle of any year of manufacture anywhere in Russia.” Yulia Fedotova, Head of the Auto Insurance Claims Settlement Department at Absolut Insurance, emphasizes that in the current realities, the organization of refurbishment is difficult due to international sanctions – the logistics of supplying spare parts are disrupted, the necessary components are missing, which does not allow the insurer to fulfill its obligations in the amount and time established by the OSAGO law.

Considering that the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation acts as a guideline for lower courts, insurers run the risk of facing a wave of lawsuits to compel them to carry out repairs, “despite the objective impossibility of this,” explains Igor Ivanov, Deputy General Director of RESO-Garantia. Roman Parkhomenko, a partner at the Pen & Paper Bar Association, believes that the mere requirement to carry out repairs as a way to protect the right “appears to be ineffective and excessively lengthy,” given the objective difficulties with the enforcement of court decisions to compel specific actions.

At the same time, lawyers note that the explanations of the Supreme Court are not enough.

According to Irina Kuznetsova, the lawyer of the ICA “Aronov and Partners”, “significant changes in the relationship between insurers and consumers should not be expected.” When communicating with the representatives of the insurer and service stations with drivers, such a system was built in which 90% of motorists agree to the proposed conditions (under pressure, due to the provision of incompletely reliable information about the rights, misunderstanding of their rights by drivers).

However, Andrey Sharkov, managing partner of Shagi Legal Company LLC, believes that after the clarification of the Supreme Court, it will be more difficult for insurers to practice dishonest behavior.

Julia Poslavskaya, Ekaterina Volkova, Ivan Buranov