If the insurance company refuses to insure the compulsory motor insurance. What to do if the insurance company refuses to issue compulsory motor insurance. Reasons for refusal to apply for compulsory motor insurance

12.04.2024

Not all drivers know that refusal to conclude an MTPL agreement, if there are no grounds for doing so, is a gross violation. This often happens due to an artificial reduction in the number of policies. Insurance companies force drivers to break the law in order to keep their profits high.

What the law says

If you are not insured under compulsory motor liability insurance, first of all you need to look into the laws. They define:

40-FZ states that the owner of a vehicle must have a policy;
in Art. 426 of the Civil Code states that the insurer is obliged to enter into an agreement with all drivers who contact it. Refusal of MTPL insurance is unacceptable;
Clause 2 of Article 16 of Law of the Russian Federation No. 2300-1 states that the imposition of additional goods and services is unacceptable. The insurer has no right to offer mandatory additional services;
Clause 14 of the OSAGO rules states that the driver has the right to choose the company to conclude the contract. If insurers refuse a compulsory motor liability insurance policy in 2017 after receiving a full package of documents from the car owner, they are breaking the law.

All these violations are subject to administrative liability. You only need to file a complaint for the insurer to be punished for its actions.

Reasons for legal refusal

In September 2014, the Russian Association of Insurers published a document. It defines what companies must do if they are denied MTPL insurance.

First of all, they must prepare a written refusal. It is sent not only to the driver, but also to the Central Bank and RSA. Refusal to conclude compulsory motor liability insurance may follow if:

there is no connection with the RSA database;
the vehicle has not passed technical inspection;
an incomplete package of documents has been submitted;
There is no power of attorney if the car is insured on behalf of an entrepreneur or legal entity.

After the publication of the document, many drivers wondered if they could refuse to apply for compulsory motor insurance due to lack of connection with the database. The law protects against such situations. The insurance company will have to prove the fact of problems with communication, and also call the driver in writing to continue providing the service after the system is restored to functionality.

What to do if you refuse

If you are refused by MTPL, you must obtain a written certificate. Oral evidence will not help you prove your case. Alternatively, you can record all interactions with the agent. This can also become powerful evidence.

If insurance companies refuse compulsory motor liability insurance, you need to:

take a written refusal. This will be your confirmation that you attempted to obtain services from the insurer to go to court or Rospotrebnadzor. If you are refused to issue compulsory motor liability insurance without life insurance, then you must note in the contract next to your signature that you did not consent to additional services;
go to court. This is the first option. If you are denied MTPL insurance, you must park the car for the duration of the proceedings and not use it. The claim must indicate all expenses incurred related to the inability to operate your own car;
contact Rospotrebnadzor. An alternative option, what to do if you are denied compulsory motor liability insurance. The specialists of this organization will help force the insurer to follow the requirements of the law and file a claim.

Always remember that the insurance company cannot refuse compulsory motor liability insurance without any legal grounds. By doing this, insurers encourage the driver to break the law. In any doubtful situation, request written confirmation of the refusal. With it you can prove violations of the law, obtain insurance and compensation.

But the fact is that the obligation to insure the civil liability of vehicle owners leads to the fact that performers (insurers) abuse this in their own interests. Many people know that they sometimes have to sue insurance companies in order to receive legitimate insurance compensation. But refusing the car owner is, perhaps, a novelty in the marketing policy of insurers. What reasons do insurers give for their reluctance to enter into compulsory motor liability insurance agreements: the lack of compulsory insurance contract forms () or the need, along with the conclusion of a compulsory motor liability insurance contract, to conclude, in particular, a voluntary insurance contract (hull insurance, life insurance contract, etc.).

In fact, after some time, a compulsory motor liability insurance contract is concluded, although, as a rule, as a result, the insurer receives more income, and the policyholder, accordingly, incurs more expenses than expected. It is clear that not everyone likes this, especially since the law in this case is on the side of vehicle owners, and officials of various supervisory authorities point to this in their unofficial explanations. They base their point of view on the provisions of the Civil Code, norms (Law of the Russian Federation dated 02/07/1992 N 2300-1), the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance (Federal Law dated 04/25/2002 N 40-FZ “On compulsory insurance of civil liability of vehicle owners”) and by-laws adopted in pursuance of their requirements.

What does the legislation say?

We should start with the fact that when establishing, exercising and protecting civil rights and in the event of failure to fulfill civil obligations, participants in civil legal relations must act in good faith. No one has the right to take advantage as a result of illegal or dishonest behavior (clauses 3, 4, Article 1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

The contract of obligatory vehicle owners is recognized as public, the insurance organization is obliged to provide services to everyone who applies to it (Article 426 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The terms of the public contract are established the same for all consumers, with the exception of cases where the law and other legal acts allow the provision of benefits for certain categories of consumers. A commercial organization’s refusal to enter into a public contract when it has the opportunity to provide the consumer with relevant goods, services, or perform work for him is not allowed.

In case of unjustified evasion of a commercial organization from concluding a public contract, the norms of paragraph 4 of Art. 445 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to which if a party for whom, in accordance with the law, the conclusion of an agreement is obligatory, evades its conclusion, the other party has the right to apply to the court with a demand to compel the conclusion of such an agreement. A party that unreasonably evades concluding a contract must compensate the other party for the losses caused by this.

The Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights prohibits conditioning the purchase of some goods (work, services) on the mandatory purchase of other goods (work, services) (clause 2 of Article 16). Vehicle owners who have insured their civil liability can additionally, voluntarily, carry out insurance in case of insufficiency of insurance payment under compulsory insurance for full compensation for harm caused to the life, health or property of victims, as well as in the event of liability not related to the insurance risk under compulsory insurance (Clause 5, Article 4 of the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance).

There is a reason to turn to the by-law - the Rules for compulsory civil liability insurance of vehicle owners (Approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of May 7, 2003 N 263). They say that the car owner has the right to freely choose an insurer providing compulsory insurance. At the same time, the insurer has no right to refuse to conclude a compulsory insurance contract to the owner of the vehicle who has applied for the conclusion of a compulsory insurance contract and has submitted all the necessary documents. The application itself is an offer-offer, for which there is a specific form (Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 1, 2009 N 67n).

On a note. The offer can be sent through the Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Russian Post" to the insurer's postal address specified in the compulsory insurance policy, with notification of delivery of the postal item. This notification of delivery will be evidence of receipt by the insurer of the offer sent by the policyholder.

If the party to whom the offer (draft agreement) is sent is required to conclude an agreement, this party must send the other party a notice of acceptance, or refusal of acceptance, or acceptance of the offer on other terms (protocol of disagreements to the draft agreement) within 30 days from the date of receipt of the offer (clause 1 of Article 445 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). If the insurer does not comply with this requirement, the policyholder (car owner) has the right to file a corresponding claim with copies of documents attached to it confirming correspondence with insurance organizations and indicating signs of violation of the law, to the supervisory authorities.

Where to complain?

The answer to this question was given by the financial department, which, it should be noted, is not itself a supervisory authority, but mostly determines legal regulation within the limits of its powers. So, the list includes the following bodies:

Bank of Russia;
Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS);
Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare (Rospotrebnadzor);
judicial authorities.

There is another body that can call insurers to order. As the reader guessed, this is the prosecutor's office. It exercises general supervision over the implementation of laws, including by governing bodies, and by the heads of commercial organizations, as well as over the compliance of issued legal acts with the laws.

It is not surprising that in April 2014, a working meeting was held at the Prosecutor General’s Office with the participation of representatives of the Bank of Russia, Rospotrebnadzor and the Federal Antimonopoly Service on the issue of state control in the insurance industry. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and develop a consolidated position of supervisory agencies on the situation in the field of compulsory insurance of civil liability of vehicle owners, about which Rospotrebnadzor informed the Prosecutor General's Office in an official letter.

What decision was developed as a result of the multilateral meeting? Each of the named bodies gave its assessment and recommendations in non-regulatory explanations published on the official websites of the department. The main thing is that there is a common understanding on the issue of the illegality of insurers’ actions. They must be held accountable and punished strictly in accordance with the law, and not with punitive administrative and audit measures. Moreover, all auditors, within the limits of their authority, can influence the current situation.

A citizen can also submit a corresponding application to the Russian Union of Auto Insurers, which is a single all-Russian professional association based on the principle of compulsory membership of insurers carrying out compulsory motor liability insurance, establishing mandatory rules of professional activity for its members and monitoring their compliance. Although it is unlikely that one should look for the truth there, since this union of insurers represents the interests of its participants and will take their side as far as possible in a given situation.

What do the Bank of Russia think about the refusal to conclude an MTPL agreement?

To begin with, let us explain what the Bank of Russia has to do with the insurance market. It turns out that it is the most direct. The fact is that the supervisory and control functions of the Federal Service for Financial Markets (FSFM) were transferred to it, which, in turn, received them as a result of the merger with the Federal Insurance Supervision Service (Rosstrakhnadzor) (Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated March 4, 2011 N 270 ). In accordance with Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated July 25, 2013 N 645, Federal Law dated July 23, 2013 N 251-FZ, the Federal Service for Financial Markets was abolished, and its powers to regulate, control and supervise the financial markets were transferred from September 1, 2013 Bank of Russia.

That is, if a citizen believes that insurance organizations have violated insurance legislation, he has the right to contact the Bank of Russia, which regulates, controls and supervises non-credit financial organizations in the financial markets. In the event of an attempt by the insurer to refuse to conclude a compulsory motor liability insurance agreement due to the alleged lack of policy forms, it is more appropriate to send the appeal to the regional divisions of the Bank of Russia.
In the Information dated 05/06/2014, the Bank of Russia notes that the evasion of insurance organizations from concluding a public contract is unlawful. When vehicle owners receive from an insurer a refusal to enter into an MTPL agreement, the Bank of Russia recommends recording these offenses by all legal means, including using photo, audio or video devices, attracting witnesses and sending the received materials indicating signs of violation of the law by the insurer to the Bank Russia and other supervisory authorities.

What does the FAS indicate?

Let us turn to the Information of this department, dated April 23, 2014. It is devoted to a specific issue: how to obtain a written refusal from an insurance organization to enter into a compulsory motor liability insurance agreement? To do this, you need to send a proposal to conclude a compulsory motor liability insurance agreement with him, attaching all the necessary documents provided for in clause 15 of the Rules for compulsory civil liability insurance of vehicle owners. The procedure for sending a proposal is discussed above. The insurer's refusal gives the citizen the right to appeal to the FAS.

Actions of insurance organizations related to refusal to issue an MTPL policy in the event of failure to conclude additional voluntary insurance contracts (if there is evidence) may contain signs of violation of the Law on Protection of Competition (Federal Law of July 26, 2006 N 135-FZ): the presence of a dominant position and abuse such a situation and the presence of anti-competitive agreements. In this case, FAS fines can be quite high, and therefore unpleasant for insurers. A document indicating signs of a violation may be a written refusal by the insurer to conclude an MTPL agreement with the citizen, but obtaining such a refusal is not easy.

There is another document - Information dated April 23, 2014, which tells you how to correctly file a complaint against the actions (inaction) of an insurance organization when applying for a compulsory motor liability insurance policy. If the actions of any persons, including insurance organizations, contain signs of violation of antimonopoly legislation, you can submit a corresponding application to the FAS or its territorial body, depending on the location of the alleged violation or the location of the person in respect of whom the application is being submitted. In order for the application to be quickly considered, it must be submitted to the territorial body of the FAS, on the territory of which, in the citizen’s opinion, the corresponding violation was committed by the insurer.

How did Rospotrebnadzor react?

Since 2013, this department has received complaints about the actions of insurers who actually prevent citizens from insuring the risk of their civil liability, which may occur as a result of causing harm to the life, health or property of others when using vehicles (Information dated April 18, 2014). Appeals are received by the territorial bodies of Rospotrebnadzor not only directly from citizens, but also from other government bodies, and officials have not ignored them.

Rospotrebnadzor has always consistently held the position that insurance is one of the types of financial services provided by providers (insurers) to consumers (policyholders, insured persons). In 2012, this legal position was supported by the Supreme Court in Resolution No. 17 dated June 28, 2012: The Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights applies to certain legal relations with the participation of consumers, including those arising from an insurance contract, both personal and property, in part not regulated by special laws. That is, it is possible to apply legislation on the protection of consumer rights to relations in the provision of services to citizens within the framework of compulsory insurance (in this document, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation limited itself only to medical insurance, which does not change the general meaning of the legal position of the highest judicial body).

Meanwhile, the functions of Rospotrebnadzor do not include control (supervision) over the direct implementation of the direct requirements of insurance legislation. This is not his area; for this purpose there is an authorized body to carry out insurance supervision. The main manifestation of bad faith on the part of insurers in relation to citizens who intend to insure their civil liability, which initially arises by force of law, comes down to the following.

The conclusion of a compulsory motor liability insurance agreement is mandatory, and if one party avoids concluding it, the other party has the right to go to court with a demand to force the conclusion of an agreement in the manner and under the conditions provided for by the Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance Law. A party that unreasonably evades concluding a contract must compensate the other party for the losses caused by this. Control over the fulfillment by vehicle owners of the insurance obligation established by the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance is carried out by the police during registration and the exercise of their other powers in the field of monitoring compliance with the Traffic Rules.

The features of compulsory liability insurance of vehicle owners fundamentally distinguish the special legal relations under consideration from relations regulated by the norms of legislation on the protection of consumer rights, which are initially based on the principle of freedom of contract. Therefore, a citizen who owns a vehicle, being an insured under compulsory motor liability insurance and a party to a compulsory insurance contract for civil liability of car owners, in this type of legal relationship is not always a consumer within the meaning of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights.

Therefore, Rospotrebnadzor has limited powers in responding to violations against citizens in the insurance sector.

It makes sense for a citizen to send a reasoned appeal to Rospotrebnadzor (its territorial bodies) only when the essence of his claims concerns not the conclusion of a compulsory motor liability insurance agreement as such, but the insurer’s attempts to impose the conclusion of other compensatory transactions on an already concluded compulsory motor liability insurance contract, in particular voluntary insurance contracts (hull insurance and etc.). The application must be accompanied (if available) with documented evidence to support the applicant’s arguments (a copy of the MTPL agreement and other agreements, copies of checks, etc.). In the event of an attempt by the insurer to refuse to conclude a compulsory motor liability insurance agreement due to the alleged lack of policy forms, the appeal must be sent to a body with broader powers. As the reader guessed, this is the Bank of Russia, to which officials from all departments refer in terms of supervision of insurance organizations and their activities.

What do the courts think about this?

There are not many court decisions challenging the refusal to conclude an MTPL agreement, one of them is the Appeal ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan dated 02/06/2014 N 33-1643/2014. The subject of the dispute was the imposition on the client of a mandatory OSAGO contract of an accident insurance policy for drivers and passengers. The court sided with the car owner, who has the right to freely choose an insurer. If it is difficult to conclude an agreement, the car owner can choose another organization included in the list of insurers entitled to enter into MTPL agreements. That is, the legislation mandatorily regulates the obligation of the vehicle owner to conclude a compulsory motor liability insurance agreement, at the same time, the insurer does not have the right to refuse to conclude the said agreement.

The norms of Art. 4 of the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance provides the following. Those who have insured their civil liability can additionally, on a voluntary basis, carry out insurance in case of insufficiency of the insurance payment under compulsory insurance for full compensation for harm caused to the life, health or property of the victims, as well as in the event of liability not related to the insurance risk under compulsory insurance. The service of concluding an additional insurance contract is contrary to the law. As a result, moral damages (albeit small) were recovered from the insurer.

A similar case was considered in the Appeal Ruling of the Yaroslavl Regional Court dated February 13, 2014 No. 33-890. In it, the client nevertheless concluded a contract of compulsory motor liability and accident insurance. Guided by the same rules, the court recovered from the insurer an insurance premium for an optional insurance contract, compensation for moral damages and a fine for failure to voluntarily meet the consumer's requirements. The amounts for the insurance company are not large; the amount of benefit obtained from imposing additional contracts on clients who do not have the time and energy to defend their rights out of court and in court is much greater.

So, the article lists the authorities that a vehicle owner can contact if the insurer refuses to enter into a compulsory motor liability insurance agreement, which is mandatory for admission to participation in road traffic. How effective the pre-trial settlement of the illegal actions (inactions) of insurers will be, time will tell. But in any case, regulatory authorities have leverage over insurers. And as a fallback option, litigation, which insurance companies are already accustomed to. It’s only a pity that more drastic measures are not taken against them: those who do not ignore the requirements of the law are allowed to work in the insurance market.

Today, refusal to issue an MTPL policy is a very common case between the buyer and the insurance company. Most often the reasons are not disclosed. A dissatisfied client may not even suspect that this is primarily due to the unprofitability of the policy for the company itself. What to do if the insurance company refuses to take out insurance, we will tell you below.

An MTPL policy is a compulsory type of insurance, without which it is prohibited to drive a car on the territory of the Russian Federation. Insurance protects against various types of traffic accidents. Moreover, the driver is given the right to repair the car in the showroom of an official dealer free of charge, throughout the entire period of validity of the compulsory motor liability insurance policy. However, when purchasing a policy, many motorists are faced with the problem of denial. Therefore, drivers need to know their rights and obligations so that in the event of such unlawful actions on the part of the insurance company, they can challenge the refusal in court.

Rights of the car insurer under the MTPL policy:

An insurance company employee does not have the right to refuse to issue a policy to a client;
The car owner can choose any insurer according to his preference;
Refuse additional insurance services.

If at least one point was not fulfilled, the person who was not provided with the above services has the right to file a complaint with any higher authority, including the prosecutor's office. Sometimes the situation is resolved out of court.

To obtain professional assistance when receiving a refusal to apply for car insurance, you must contact a qualified lawyer.

Can an insurance company refuse to issue compulsory motor liability insurance?

According to statistical data from 2017, insurance companies increasingly began to refuse policyholders to issue an MTPL policy for a car. This happens for the following reasons:

Increasing the initial limit of applications for an insurance policy;
Maintaining a unified system that automatically calculates the company's losses, thereby regulating the issuance of MTPL policies;
Extension of laws that protect consumer rights to compulsory motor liability insurance;
A significant increase in the cost of car parts, which in turn leads to an increase in the price of the insurance policy.

According to Federal Law No. 40, such actions of the insurer are illegal.

What to do if the insurance company refuses to issue insurance?

Refusal to obtain car insurance is a common case in which insurance clients need to take the following actions.

If a company employee refuses to issue a policy, it is necessary to immediately record it in order to subsequently present evidence in court. To do this, you can use an audio or video camera. However, do not forget that before recording on any source of fixation, you should warn the employee who issues the MTPL policy about this. Recorded video or audio materials are attached to the claim to appeal the insurance company's decision.

One of the most effective ways to hold the insurance company accountable is to send a complaint to the RSA against a company employee who refused to draw up a document. In addition, you can challenge the insurer’s decision:

In court at your place of residence;
At the nearest RSA branch;
In FAS;
At the prosecutor's office;
In the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.

Liability for violation of the Federal Law “On Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance”

According to Federal Law No. 40, employees of insurance companies do not have the right to refuse to issue compulsory motor liability insurance.

In case of receiving an unjustified refusal, the insurer will be held administratively liable in the amount of up to 50 thousand rubles. The objectivity of the reasons for the ban in this case is not taken into account.

If previously, in the case of compulsory motor liability insurance, we were only faced with problems with receiving insurance payments, then since last year, problems began to fall into our wheels even at the stage of purchasing a policy. Insurance companies have come up with many new tricks for motorists in order to show that it is not profitable for them to insure at current rates. To more confidently resist the lawlessness of insurance companies, you need to know the basic provisions of the law. Let's consider how to behave in the event of the following illegal actions of insurers.

1. Refusal to apply a discount for accident-free driving

The coefficient for accident-free driving (bonus-malus coefficient, or BMC) has not been canceled or changed. The maximum discount for KBM is 50%. When terminating a previous compulsory insurance contract, you can obtain “Insurance Information” from your insurer. They indicate your current KBM. This information is provided by insurers in writing, free of charge. With this document, you can go to any other insurance company, and they will be required to insure you based on the document provided.

Don’t believe managers’ stories about the invalidity of this information, the need for a week-long check with the Russian Union of Auto Insurers (RUA), “freezing” of the database, and other nonsense. The law is on your side! According to its requirements, the insurer is obliged to insure you based on the information contained in your application for insurance!

Moreover, paragraph 20 of the MTPL rules directly states that even if there is a discrepancy between the information provided by the policyholder and the data from the RSA database, the insurer concludes a MTPL agreement based on the policyholder’s data!

Insurers are required to issue a policy and then, within 15 days, verify the accuracy of the information you provide. If an error is identified, you must be required to pay extra or, conversely, return the overpaid amount. If false information is detected, the insurer has the right to terminate the MTPL agreement early.

If you remain in the same company, then no access to the RSA database is even more necessary: “When concluding a compulsory insurance contract, for the purpose of calculating the insurance premium, it uses information about insurance... available from the insurer.” If in the past you were insured at a discount and you did not get into an accident, the discount cannot disappear anywhere! So, sweep away all the insurer’s nods to the PCA database, which shows the absence of a discount (KBM = 1.0), immediately and away! Without the participation of the insurer's representatives, nothing can disappear or appear in the database! Write a complaint - everything will be found right away!

2. Insurance after inspection of the car by appointment

“We will insure only after a preliminary inspection. The next available date is in a month!” - another lie from insurance companies. Clause 19 of the OSAGO rules does give the insurer the right to inspect the insured’s vehicle, but the “right to inspect the car” is not the same as the “right to refuse insurance”!

In accordance with paragraph 14 of the MTPL rules, “the insurer has no right to refuse to conclude a compulsory insurance contract to the owner of a vehicle who has applied to him with an application to conclude a compulsory insurance contract and has submitted documents in accordance with these rules.”

In general, if you want to take a look, come at the agreed time, but you must insure now! And without additional conditions and requirements. For example, imposing additional types of insurance.

3. Imposing life insurance and other additional services

The imposition by the insurer of additional policies “in addition” to compulsory motor liability insurance is a violation of Art. 16 of the Law “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”, as well as other norms of current legislation. However, after Vladimir Putin drew attention to this lawlessness during the Media Forum on April 24, in order to counter the insurer, it is better to immediately refer to the president’s direct speech: “As for imposed services, we must fight this. If it is necessary and possible to improve legislation, formulate proposals. But supervisory authorities must monitor this closely. First of all, this is the Central Bank. I would like to draw the attention of Elvira Nabiullina to this. She will send the corresponding signal, I am sure, to the territorial authorities. We will watch this closely."

4. Denial of insurance due to lack of policies

I think that another clearly far-fetched problem will also resolve in the near future: the lack of compulsory motor liability insurance policies. I am sure that all our supervisory and control authorities were well aware of the lawlessness going on in the insurance market. But these are the realities of life: no one is active without the president’s shout. And now, hot on the heels, the Perm department of the FAS stopped the practice of Rosgosstrakh imposing Fortuna Auto policies, the Belgorod department of the FAS fined Rosgosstrakh LLC for imposing personal insurance contracts when selling MTPL policies for 275 thousand rubles, the OFAS in Tatarstan fined "Rosgosstrakh" for 158 million rubles (!) for imposing additional services when applying for an MTPL policy!

I have no doubt that now the Voronezh supervisory authorities are looking forward to your complaints! Don't miss this opportunity! The courts also almost always come to the defense of defrauded policyholders. Insurers know this. Therefore, it makes sense to write a pre-trial claim addressed to the director of a branch of the insurance company with a demand to voluntarily return the overpaid money due to incorrectly applied KBM or imposed insurance contracts. As a rule, insurers do not bring such cases to the courts: they will lose anyway. So write boldly!

Mine!, Voronezh

Refusals to issue compulsory motor liability insurance are often not justified by the insurance company - according to the law, there is not a single reason that “permits” such actions. Typically, insurance companies will refuse because of the potential losses they are expected to incur by selling you the policy.

However, the dynamics and statistics of road accidents in many regions of Russia remain positive for insurers, so the purchase of a policy can rarely be considered a truly unprofitable action for the company. If the insurer nevertheless insists on denying the car owner, he may have hidden reasons - read about them below.

The insurance company is designed to make a profit, so when the level of accidents in the region increases, the sale of policies that imply large payments to car owners becomes unprofitable. But formally from the point of view of the law this is not a good enough reason to turn away motorists.

It is clear that companies need to protect themselves and not work at a loss. In anticipation of an increase in MTPL rates, many of them were forced to dismiss workers and close some representative offices in the regions in order to reduce costs. And payments under compulsory motor liability insurance amounted to almost 90 percent of the amount that motorists initially paid for the policies to the insurer.

The situation on the market is still considered critical - for example, insurers in Kamchatka, for example, were forced to pay more than 100 percent of their premiums to car owners involved in accidents.

In such a situation, the only way out is to refuse new clients, no matter how careful drivers they are. After all, many accidents occur not because of the unprofessionalism of the person behind the wheel, but because of the condition of the roads and circumstances. And if a person registers MTPL for the first time, he may turn out to be completely inexperienced, adding to the company the risk of incurring losses in the next 12 months.

In any case, the refusal to the client by the insurance company is unlawful. Insurance companies know this, so they motivate their actions by the lack of some documents, the reluctance of the car owner to purchase “package” services (additional ones that supposedly come with the policy), negative statistics about accidents that have occurred with the driver.

However, by law they do not have the right to refuse. The MTPL agreement is recognized as public and therefore can be concluded with anyone who applies.

All this applies if your case does not fall under one of the justified refusals established by the RSA:

The insurance company may refuse if it has no connection with the union of auto insurers;
you did not carry out a technical inspection of the vehicle within the prescribed period (applies to cars older than 3);
there is a shortage of documents required by law on your part;
there is no power of attorney if the MTPL is issued by a legal entity or a person who is not the owner.

All this rarely happens, since insurers are interested in connection with the RCA, the list of documents for the policy includes a vehicle diagnostic card, the insurance company must independently request documents in addition to the government-approved list, and the trustee almost always has official papers for concluding legitimate contracts.

What to do if you refuse?

You can appeal what happened - send a written appeal to the insurance company or an authorized body so that the insurance company is brought to administrative responsibility.

According to the law, unfounded refusals by insurance companies are subject to a fine of 50 thousand rubles.

Evidence of refusal should be sent along with the complaint/claim.– an official document with the seal of the Insurance Company, which indicates a formal refusal to issue compulsory motor liability insurance, correspondence or a recording of a conversation with the manager (with his consent).

Documents are copied, attached to the application and sent to:

Central Bank of the Russian Federation– it is this organization that is responsible for the activities of all insurance companies in the country. You need to contact your local branch in the region;
prosecutor's office– especially if the insurance company tried to impose additional products on you, convincing you that it could not issue MTPL without them (extortion, blackmail - fraudulent actions);
local branch of the auto insurers union;
courts;
FAS in Moscow.

You can contact us either in person at the reception or remotely using postal services and the Internet. Consideration of the complaint by the authorities should not take longer than 30 days. It is best to first submit the claim to the insurer itself so that this serves as additional evidence of the company's inaction in trying to resolve the situation.

How to challenge a refusal

To challenge an unfair refusal to issue compulsory motor liability insurance, you need to:

Have an application for the issuance of a policy signed by the insurance company and accepted for consideration. Usually one copy always remains with you, even if the insurance company takes a long time to “make a decision”;
have the IC’s refusal in writing - on the company’s formal letterhead with signatures and seals of the organization and compelling reasons in the text that prompted the IC to refuse you.

Also, if the failure is not documented in any way, it is permissible to use recording devices with prior warning to the manager or company representative about the use of video and audio recording devices. In addition, you can rely on witnesses - in some cases, the court makes a decision based on the words of the people present when the law was violated.

To challenge a refusal:

Send the first claim to the insurance company - preferably by registered mail, since a company representative personally may refuse to sign it.
Receive a written refusal to accept the claim and issue compulsory motor liability insurance.
Send the evidence and claim to other pre-trial authorities (prosecutor's office, RSA, etc.).
It is permissible to file a lawsuit simultaneously with the previous action.

The judicial authorities will conduct their own review of the actions of the insurer and its offer agreement. It should be noted that in the vast majority of cases, the decision is made in favor of the driver, since insurance companies actually violate the legal rights of citizens by refusing to issue an MTPL policy.