The Supreme Court affirmed the position of the Russian Association of Auto Insurers (RSA) in a dispute over compensation for damages under the OSAGO system and declined to rely on the findings of an independent examination that did not include a direct inspection of the vehicle. This update comes from pravo.ru, which has followed the case closely and traced the procedural steps that led to the final ruling.
The dispute originated when the owner of a Mitsubishi off-road vehicle sustained damage in a road accident and subsequently transferred his right to claim compensation from the insurer to a commercial company. That intermediary then passed the claim along to another firm. The second company did not participate in the damage assessment, which totaled 257.9 thousand rubles, and instead requested the insurer to arrange an independent technical evaluation. When the insurer did not arrange the appraisal, the company ultimately hired its own appraiser, who determined the amount of damage to be 355 thousand rubles. The differing assessments sparked a dispute about the proper method for evaluating vehicle damage and the legitimacy of relying on non-insurer-led examinations in determining compensation under OSAGO. The court considered whether the independent appraisal could stand as the basis for the insurer’s liability or if it should be overridden by the insurer’s own records and statutory procedures. The decision underscored the principle that compensation must reflect a fair and verified assessment of loss, while also recognizing the procedural options available to claimants and insurers under the OSAGO framework. The situation highlights the tension between speed, cost, and accuracy in post-accident evaluations, and the role that independent experts can play in ensuring that compensation aligns with actual damage. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the insurer’s position could be upheld, and that the results of the independent review, which did not include a direct car inspection, should not override the insurer’s or court’s assessment based on prior evaluations. This interpretation helps clarify how OSAGO claims are to be processed when independent expertise is invoked, and it sets a precedent for subsequent cases where insurers may rely on established assessments rather than new, externally commissioned appraisals. [Source: pravo.ru]
The case also illustrates how bankruptcy complications can influence the path of a claim. With the insurance company having entered bankruptcy, the claimant initially turned to the Players Claims Authority (PCA) for relief, and several attempts were made to remedy the situation through official channels. The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the idea that, in situations where insurers face financial difficulties, the procedures for pursuing compensation must remain consistent with the existing legal framework and the rights of policyholders and assignees. The decision thus provides clarity for all parties in similar distressing scenarios, ensuring that the resolution process remains anchored to verifiable evidence and established procedures rather than relying solely on potentially divergent questionnaires or disputed appraisals. It also underscores the need for careful handling of assignments and transfers of claims, especially when multiple entities are involved in an OSAGO recovery process. [Source: pravo.ru]
In broader terms, observers note that the ruling serves as a practical reference for insurers, claimants, and professionals involved in OSAGO settlements in Russia. It emphasizes the critical balance between expedient settlement and rigorous validation of damages, and it clarifies how appellate courts should treat independent examinations when direct vehicle inspection is not performed. Analysts point out that the decision may influence future negotiations between insurers, claimants, and third-party appraisers, encouraging more transparent processes and a closer alignment with independent expert opinions when appropriate. The ruling also prompts insurers to consider the structure of their internal processes for handling claims, the availability of independent expertise, and the potential impact of company insolvency on ongoing OSAGO disputes. As the law continues to evolve, stakeholders will be watching how courts interpret similar situations and what this means for the consistency and predictability of OSAGO compensation across regions. [Source: pravo.ru]