In a move that could reshape how vehicle insurance works in the country, state Duma deputy Yevgeny Fedorov proposed a rule that would prevent insurers from issuing OSAGO policies unless they have formal agreements with a network of gas stations and maintenance facilities. RT reported this stance, citing a letter sent to Transport Minister Vitaly Savelyev. The idea rests on a belief that consumer protections in motor insurance should be tied to real, verifiable service options—ensuring policyholders legitimately can access repairs or cash compensation after an insured event through a network they actually rely on.
Fedorov argues that under current laws, an OSAGO policy generally guarantees compensation for repairs or cash payments following an accident or other insured event. Yet he notes that some insurers make it difficult or impossible for customers to obtain repairs, effectively limiting the practical benefits of the policy. This, he suggests, undermines the purpose of mandatory third-party liability and erodes consumer confidence in the system. By tying OSAGO availability to concrete service partnerships, the deputy believes the market would push insurers to deliver timely, transparent options for vehicle owners seeking post-accident assistance.
Another facet of his critique focuses on insurers that do not have agreements with gas stations or service networks—these companies reportedly pre-emptively allocate reimbursement payments within the policy itself. In practice, this means customers may discover only after a collision that their chosen insurer cannot arrange repairs through a familiar network, or that the policy favors cash settlements arranged without a clear, on-the-ground pathway to service. For drivers, this creates a sense of uncertainty at precisely the moment when reliable support is most needed.
Fedorov’s proposal thus aims to enforce a standard: OSAGO policies should come with verifiable, accessible provider networks. If an insurer cannot offer customers a straightforward choice of insured services and a working avenue for repairs, the proposal suggests that the insurer should not issue new OSAGO policies. The underlying rationale is to close gaps between policy promises and the practical means to fulfill them, thereby reducing disputes after accidents and helping motorists secure dependable post-incident care without hunting for a repair partner on their own.
Supporters of the plan say it would create a more predictable landscape for both consumers and insurers. Motorists would benefit from guaranteed access to service centers that are listed, trusted, and easy to contact, while insurers would be encouraged to maintain transparent pricing, straightforward claims processes, and a consistent set of service options. Opponents, however, warn about potential market rigidity: if the obligation to form alliances becomes too strict, smaller insurers could struggle to compete or might exit the OSAGO market altogether, potentially reducing choices for drivers in some regions. The discussion, observers note, is part of a broader conversation about modernizing compulsory motor insurance and aligning it with what drivers actually experience on the road.
As this topic moves through the administrative channels, it raises questions about how such a policy change would be implemented. Traffic authorities would need to define what constitutes an adequate network of service partners, the minimum standards for repair quality, and the procedures for policy issuance when contracts with gas stations or service networks are not in place. Additionally, lawmakers would have to balance consumer protection with the practical realities of insurance markets, ensuring that any reforms do not inadvertently reduce coverage or drive up costs for motorists who rely on smaller providers or rural service networks.
Ultimately, the conversation centers on making motor insurance more reliable and easier to navigate. If a binding requirement for service networks becomes law, drivers could experience fewer surprises after accidents, with a clearer path to repairs or compensation. Insurers would be pressed to maintain robust partnerships, clear communication, and transparent terms, while policyholders would benefit from a more consistent and predictable insurance experience. The debate continues to unfold as stakeholders weigh the potential benefits against the risks of altering an essential component of the country’s road safety framework.
A picture: Depositphotos