In a shift toward shorter OSAGO terms, lawmakers discuss a new proposal
In the near future, deputies from the LDPR faction plan to propose a bill to the State Duma that would change the term of the compulsory motor third party liability insurance, known as OSAGO, from a full year to a range spanning one month to one year. The proposal was shared along with an explanatory note and appears in the public record via a channel operated by Yaroslav Nilov, a deputy who leads the LDPR fraction in the State Duma. This context indicates an ongoing effort to rethink how mandatory car insurance terms are set and understood by drivers across the country.
Today OSAGO is traditionally issued for a period of twelve months, with certain exceptions defined by the current legislation. At present, the law does not generally permit a policy for vehicles registered in Russia to cover less than a year, except in specific, narrowly defined circumstances. In practice, most OSAGO agreements run for a full year, creating a standard that aligns with annual vehicle registration cycles and broader insurance markets. The proposed change would introduce a broader spectrum of durations while preserving the statutory framework that governs compulsory insurance.
There are situations where a shorter policy could seem practical. For example, travelers planning a brief trip or a single trip to another city might consider whether a shorter term would be sufficient for their needs. In these cases, the draft notes suggest that some drivers might weigh the option of paying a fine of about 800 rubles rather than purchasing a policy with a cost typically exceeding 5,000 rubles. The calculation involves not only the immediate cost of the policy but also the potential risk exposure while driving without coverage. The authors of the initiative argue that giving drivers the choice to match policy duration to actual use could lead to more efficient spending and better alignment with real driving patterns.
The explanatory note accompanying the draft emphasizes a goal: reduce the number of instances in which vehicle owners operate a vehicle without an OSAGO contract. The proposed law would set the valid period of a compulsory insurance contract to a broader range, specifically from one month up to one year. In other words, it would allow a driver to select a policy length that corresponds to how long the vehicle will be used within a given period, rather than forcing a one-size-fits-all annual term. The intention is not to weaken protections but to provide greater flexibility while maintaining mandatory coverage as a general standard for road safety and financial responsibility on Russian roads. (Source attribution: LDPR policy brief, public record notes.)
Industry observers and consumer groups have highlighted that the cost structure for OSAGO has been shifting. In early June, reports indicated an uptick in the price of comprehensive MTPL policies for the first time in several years, a trend that could influence how drivers perceive the value and necessity of annual versus shorter-term coverage. Proponents of the reform argue that shorter terms could stimulate competition among insurers and offer avenues for policyholders to adapt coverage to their actual driving needs, potentially reducing unnecessary expenditures for those who drive infrequently or only for limited trips. Critics, however, warn about the possible implications for administrative complexity, pricing volatility, and the consistency of ongoing protection when renewals occur with different intervals. (Source attribution: market sentiment notes, June briefing.)
As the debate unfolds, supporters of the draft contend that a flexible OSAGO term would better reflect modern driving patterns and could encourage more responsible vehicle use. They also point to the need for clear communication from insurers about what a shorter-term policy covers, including the duration of liability coverage, coverage boundaries, and the process for renewals or extensions if the driver continues to operate the vehicle across multiple months. Opponents stress the importance of ensuring that shorter terms do not undermine universal coverage or create gaps in protection, especially for drivers who rely on their vehicle for essential daily activities. Public discourse around this issue remains nuanced, with stakeholders emphasizing practical outcomes for motorists, insurers, and road safety authorities. (Source attribution: legislative briefings and industry commentary.)