• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site

Article

Эффективность правового регулирования порядка возмещения вреда по договору ОСАГО

The article examines the main results of the reform of the procedure for insurance compensation under the contract of compulsory insurance of civil liability of vehicle owners (MTPL). The federal law of March 28, 2017 No. 49-FZ established the priority of compensation of harm under the OSAGO contract in the form of restoration repair. At the same time, the Regulation of the Bank of Russia of September 19, 2014 No. 431-P establishes the criteria to which the maintenance station (HUNDRED) should correspond. The prerequisites for the adoption of this set of norms include a significant number of court cases concerning the payment of insurance compensation under an OSAGO contract, the active work of intermediaries, as well as a high level of insurance fraud. The purpose of the mentioned Law, based on the position of the legislator and representatives of the professional community, is to reduce the amount of cash payments under an OSAGO contract, which will reduce the interest of intermediaries and unscrupulous market participants in this area. Based on the analysis of statistical data of the Russian Association of Motor Insurers, the Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, as well as law enforcement and judicial practice, the authors assess whether the goal of reform of the insurance compensation procedure under the MTPL agreement has been achieved, and conclude that the adopted innovations are ineffective. The main reasons for this are the insufficient elaboration of the order of relations between the workshop, the insurer and the victim; the lack of the necessary number of service stations that meet the criteria established by the legislator; the cost of the organization of the repair and the inclusion in the legal relationship between the insurer and the victim of a third party (STOA), not controlled by the supervisory authority; the problem of limiting the right of the victim to choose the form of insurance compensation.