The authorities want to introduce compulsory insurance for visitors to public events: what’s the catch?

Professor Safonov “Insurance does not solve security problems, but allows you to “pay off” the victims”

Compulsory insurance for visitors to public events may be introduced in Russia. The authorities began to think about the need for such a measure again after the terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall. This initiative was made by the head of the State Duma Committee on the Financial Market, Anatoly Aksakov, and the deputy chairman of the committee, Oleg Savchenko. MK discussed with experts how reasonable such a proposal is and how it can be implemented.

This is not the first time that the initiative to insure visitors to crowded places in Russia has been put forward. Previously, the same issue was raised by the authorities in 2018 immediately after a fire in the Zimnyaya Vishnya shopping center in Kemerovo. However, then the matter did not go further than discussions. After the tragedy of March 22, they decided to return to the proposal. The corresponding bill has not yet been introduced and, as Aksakov said, is still being worked on by the professional community. “We need to carefully calculate so that insurance costs do not affect prices for the end consumer,” the deputy said. “Obviously, the owners will want to pass on additional costs to visitors. Our task is to find a balanced option.”

The Central Bank of the Russian Federation and representatives of insurers have already supported the initiative of parliamentarians. However, among experts, the proposal of the deputies caused controversy. “I have a negative attitude towards this kind of initiative, because it is an attempt to hide the problem,” says Alexander Safonov, a professor at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation. — Insurance cannot cover the tasks that need to be solved when ensuring security at public events. The insurance payment is simply compensation for damage, but it is not clear how to calculate it or compensate it in full if we are talking about those killed as a result of failure to take adequate safety measures. Under no circumstances should we approach this issue in such a way that we can “pay and forget.”

Authorities need to focus on strengthening security measures. And the introduction of insurance does not solve these problems at all, but allows, no matter how harsh it may sound, to simply “pay off”. Victims have the opportunity to sue the event organizer and receive the necessary payments from him. And based on such precedents, the organizers of mass events will start to think about what they would do better: invest in strengthening security or make their own decision and insure the event. But simply introducing insurance will only lead to a shifting of responsibility, and in the end this will all affect the pockets of citizens – they will pay their own compensation for failure to comply with security measures by the organizers of mass events. That is, in fact, there is a shift of responsibility from event organizers to their visitors, and this is wrong. The state here can only create standards for ensuring security measures for such situations, the professor emphasized.

“In my opinion, there is a need for compulsory health and life insurance for citizens in public places, especially after the tragic events of March 22,” a professor at the Department of Global Financial Markets and Fintech at the Russian Economic University, enters into the debate. Plekhanova Yulia Akhvlediani. We can propose an insurance model similar to that for foreign trips: if a tourist abroad suffers from a terrorist attack, then, if he has a policy, he has the right to cover medical expenses in the amount of up to 2 million rubles, the expert suggested. This figure corresponds to the calculations of other specialists: for example, the All-Russian Union of Insurers (VUS) has already reported that the amount of compensation to victims of Crocus can be up to 2-3 million rubles for each visitor.

“The consumer will not act as an insurer in such legal relations; a party to the insurance contract will always be the owner of a crowded place or the organizer of a mass event, therefore there is no talk of separate insurance,” says Vladimir Kuznetsov, Chairman of the All-Russian Union of Mediators. For events that are free to consumers, insurance costs will be reimbursed through other means, including advertising revenue or event sponsors.

“I urge you to treat the idea of ​​compulsory insurance with caution,” continues the conversation, the chairman of the Moscow Bar Association “Bureau” Polina Kondratyuk. — The costs of compulsory insurance will fall on the business, and ultimately on the consumer. At the same time, businesses will not be motivated to increase the level of safety, expecting that insurance will cover the losses.”

Another important point concerns how this initiative will affect the wallets of Russians. Aksakov himself states that the authorities want to prevent ticket prices from rising if the organizer takes out insurance, but what the mechanism for monitoring the implementation of this intention will be is unclear. And in such conditions, the increase in prices for tickets to mass events for end consumers will be limited only by the appetites of its organizers.