The Union of Auto Services has raised concerns and is preparing formal communication for the Federation Council’s Economic Policy Committee, outlining a set of issues affecting the auto insurance ecosystem.
Officials in the defense and security sectors have pointed to persistent inconsistencies in the pricing of spare parts as listed in professional reference guides. These guides sometimes reflect a single method of calculation that does not align with current market conditions. In practice, the stated prices for spare parts can be lower than what the market actually demands, and on certain occasions, customers report that required components are simply unavailable when quotes are issued. This disconnect raises questions about the reliability of pricing benchmarks used by insurers and repair networks.
Market observers note that the resulting gap between guide prices and real-world costs can leave policyholders under-compensated when a loss occurs. In many cases, the compensation under OSAGO does not cover the full cost of restoration, leaving customers to bridge the difference out of pocket. This situation has spurred debate about the adequacy of compensation standards and the transparency of pricing used in claim settlements.
Critics suggest that some insurers have implemented strategies to steer customers away from traditional in-kind repairs toward cash settlements. Allegations have circulated that there is an active push to terminate OSAGO contracts with body shops, which would direct more customers toward cash payouts under the law. Proponents of the cash-out approach argue that it offers flexibility for policyholders, while critics contend that it enables cost-saving measures for insurers at the expense of customers who rely on repairs to restore vehicles to their pre-accident condition.
In parallel, industry observers emphasize the need for greater alignment between reference pricing, supplier costs, and the actual market environment. They advocate for independent verification of spare parts pricing, increased price transparency, and clearer guidelines for when cash settlements are appropriate. The goal is to ensure that policyholders receive fair compensation that reflects real repair costs, while also maintaining a sustainable framework for insurers and repair networks alike. The discussion continues as regulatory bodies, industry associations, and consumer advocates examine reforms to pricing rules, claims processes, and contract practices within OSAGO. (Union of Auto Services/Telegram)