In November, the tally of terminate notices for already closed OSAGO contracts, initiated by the insurer, rose due to errors in the insured person’s data or in the vehicle information. Users discuss such incidents on the portals Banki.ru and Sravni.ru, reflecting a pattern that many readers recognize. Insured individuals report that contracts are terminated because of mistakes in vehicle capacity or vehicle registration details, and they often do not receive a refund of the insurance premium. In some cases the insurer rejects requests to correct the data, leaving policyholders frustrated and uncertain about next steps.
Looking back at 2022, data show that during the first three quarters the number of OSAGO terminations initiated by insurers because of incorrect information ranged roughly from 150,000 to 300,000 cases. A common scenario involves claimants misrepresenting information about the vehicle’s area of predominant use, engine power, or the driver’s purpose of use, whether they are in North America, Canada, or other markets with similar insurance models. The underlying concern is that inaccuracies in key risk factors can influence premium calculations, and some policyholders may believe these misrepresentations could reduce costs or escape higher rates.
Insurers’ stance
Insurers argue that their actions are compliant with current law because they reserve the right to terminate contracts unilaterally when material information that affects risk assessment is found to be incorrect. Legal experts consulted in related discussions frequently support the view that such unilateral terminations fall within permissible regulatory boundaries when the information is material to determining risk and premium levels.
From the insurers’ perspective, some customers may provide inaccurate data to secure lower premiums by triggering favorable coefficients or rating factors. The Russian Union of Insurers notes that this practice—while controversial—exists in practice as a tool to counteract insurance fraud. If the ability to cancel unilaterally were removed, critics worry that there would be fewer mechanisms to deter misrepresentation and fraud in the market. In markets outside Russia, similar debates occur around data accuracy, disclosure duties, and the balance between consumer protection and insurer risk management.
***
Central Bank data indicate a notable rise in complaints against insurers over the three quarters of the current year, with near 30 percent more reports than before. Within the complaint mix, CMTPL—comprehensive motor third-party liability coverage—accounts for about eight out of ten concerns. The pattern signals a broader interest in how data quality, risk assessment, and policy administration intersect for everyday drivers, whether they are in Commonwealth nations, North America, or other insurance-enabled economies where regulatory oversight emphasizes fairness and transparency.
These trends highlight a tension between data integrity and consumer rights. For policyholders, the practical takeaway is to keep meticulous records, review vehicle and usage data regularly, and understand how insurers may adjust coverage terms when information changes. For regulators, the challenge lies in ensuring that data collection practices are accurate and that process-based remedies exist so customers can rectify mistakes without losing essential protections.