Appealing the unified MTPL methodology

Was that even possible? The court recovered payment under compulsory motor liability insurance not according to RSA directories

The dispute between the Tatarstan OFAS and RSA about reference books of spare parts and standard hours for calculating payments under MTPL opened up the opportunity for millions of consumers to recalculate payments without using reference books at all. So far, such cases are rare. But in the case of mass practice, they will significantly change the level of payments in MTPL.

Background

The Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (UFAS) for the Republic of Tatarstan issued an order to the Russian Union of Auto Insurers (RUA), accusing the union of using its dominant position in the MTPL market and understating prices in the reference books of spare parts and standard hours used to calculate payments. The OFAS indicated that in the directories the real market prices for spare parts are underestimated by an average of 30%, for materials - by 25%. In March 2018, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation supported this order, obliging RSA to eliminate the violation (unreasonably low prices in directories).

The Tatarstan OFAS ASN officially confirmed that the directories updated taking into account the decision of the Supreme Court should be used for insured events “for the period from 2016 to 2018.” According to RSA, in 2018, Russian insurers settled 2.1 million insurance cases in the field of compulsory motor liability insurance. In 2016 and 2017 2.4 million insurance claims were settled.

No reference books at all

ASN was able to find a court decision, which, taking into account the position of the Supreme Court on the dispute between the Federal Antimonopoly Service and the RSA, decided to recover from the insurance company a payment under compulsory motor liability insurance, calculated at the market cost of repairs without using the RSA directories.

In May 2018, the Mineralovodsk City Court of the Stavropol Territory recovered 96 thousand rubles from RESO-Garantiya in favor of an individual. underpaid part of the insurance compensation, 30 thousand rubles. fine, 3 thousand rubles compensation for moral damage and legal costs for the representative and the appraiser. A consumer dispute with an insurance company arose over the assessment of the costs of restorative repairs of a KIA Cerato car, which was involved in an accident on the Caucasus federal road.

In court, the consumer pointed to the order of the Tatarstan OFAS, supported by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. He drew attention to the fact that the RSA directories at the time of the litigation (May 2018) were not formed “in strict accordance with the Regulations on the Unified Methodology.” In this regard, the plaintiff asked to return the examination for revision “taking into account the wear of the replaced parts on the day of the accident, based on the Unified Methodology, but without using the RSA reference book.”

Judge Ivan Kazanchev granted this request. As a result, the underpayment was recovered from RESO-Garantiya, and the decision entered into legal force.

"This is a revolutionary solution"

“This is a revolutionary solution. With this approach, the Unified Methodology is generally called into question. Everything needs to be reconsidered. Any increase in insurance coverage entails an increase in the insurance tariff,” Denis Makarov, head of the methodology department for compulsory types of insurance at AlfaStrakhovanie, told ASN, commenting on the verdict of the Mineralovodsk City Court.

A change in the approach to calculating the amount of damage under compulsory motor liability insurance means an increase in insurance coverage for this type of insurance, he notes: “Within the current price corridor in compulsory motor liability insurance, this will lead to the fact that many companies, after changes in judicial practice, will raise prices, and the end consumer will pay.”

"Very interesting case"

Lawyer Olga Kurzina considers the decision of the Mineralovodsk City Court “really interesting.” “Finally, the courts of first instance began to understand that methods and reference books are not the same thing. And the court ordered an examination according to the Unified Methodology, without RSA reference books, which I think is completely fair,” she says. Olga Kurzina also emphasized that before the decision of the Supreme Court, the courts relied exclusively on prices from RSA directories - regardless of how much the spare part cost. “Now the situation is changing a little, but unfortunately there are very few such solutions,” she says.

So far - isolated cases

The Tatarstan OFAS does not monitor the number of people who filed such claims. However, in approximately 20 cases the agency was involved in such cases as a third party. There are decisions on recalculation, but the antimonopoly authority does not have the right to provide them by virtue of the law on personal data, the FAS press service indicated in response to a request from the ASN.

The RSA noted that claims based on the FAS order are isolated. Courts extremely rarely make conclusions similar to those of the Mineralny Vody court, the union points out.

AlfaStrakhovanie reported that there are no mass cases of such claims against the company; there are “several decisions not in favor of the insurer, but all of them are being appealed.”

Ingosstrakh has not encountered such claims, but is monitoring the development of the situation.

Rosgosstrakh (the company occupied about 28% of the OSAGO market in 2016; in 2017, the share fell from 25% to 10%) chose not to comment on the situation.

There were other similar claims against RESO-Garantiya, the company told ASN, and “both positive and negative decisions” were made on them.

Insurers against

RESO-Garantiya lawyers have a negative attitude towards the described position of the court. The use of the reference book cannot be considered in isolation from the methodology, except for cases provided for by the methodology itself, Deputy General Director of RESO-Garantia Igor Ivanov told ASN.

The use of market value by the courts to justify the calculation of the restoration repair of a vehicle is a direct violation of the current legislation (the law on compulsory motor liability insurance and the Central Bank’s regulations on the Unified Methodology). When determining the cost of spare parts, only the information contained in the RSA directory should be used, says Tatyana Komarova, director of the legal department of Ingosstrakh.

AlfaStrakhovanie’s position is based on the fact that according to the law on compulsory motor liability insurance, “we are required to use the RSA reference books and the Unified Methodology, so there are no violations on our part,” Ekaterina Kuzicheva, head of the legal support department of the insurance payments department of AlfaStrakhovanie JSC, told ASN.

AlfaStrakhovanie also commented on the position of the Federal Antimonopoly Service on the need to apply the handbooks on insured events, adjusted in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court, “for the period from 2016 to 2018.” “These obligations in such a volume could not be reserved by insurance companies. The revision of reserves for insurers' liabilities, which are several times higher than payments from previous periods, means bankruptcy for some companies, and for others - a decrease in profitability to negative. OSAGO will once again become a problem area for car owners, activity in the sale of this type of insurance will decrease, and problems with availability may arise,” says Denis Makarov, head of the methodology department for compulsory types of insurance.

The RSA ASN stated that the law does not have retroactive effect, therefore the data from the new directories cannot be applied “retroactively”. At the same time, at the beginning of February, RSA proposed to expand the validity of the new directories to road accidents that occurred earlier, but were reported after December 1, 2018 - from the date of updating the directories. “We have not yet received a response from the Federal Antimonopoly Service for the Republic of Tatarstan to this proposal,” RSA reported.

Appeal against the unified RSA methodology

Theme Options

Search by topic

Appeal against the unified RSA methodology

After the accident, I did an independent examination, the market value and the prices indicated in the RSA directory differ by more than 2 times.
Share your experience, who has already sued the insurance company, what pitfalls may arise here.
I looked at various court decisions on this issue, and in principle there are enough precedents when the court satisfied the claim.

And immediately the second question, if, as part of a civil process, you file a claim against the culprit of an accident for compensation for material damage, then in the claim you can indicate the amount of restoration repairs at market value without taking into account wear and tear, minus the amount paid by the insurance company. Or just the amount of restoration repairs without taking into account wear and tear according to the RSA directory, minus the amount paid by the insurance?

I am Russian, said the Man. And God cried with him

Vehicle maintenance A B C D (OSAG/KBM)

A unified methodology was created by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.
Prices are indicated in the RSA directory; insurance companies have nothing to do with the formation.
Collect at market rates from the insurance company.

What kind of car, year of manufacture? Are there no duplicates or used ones?

A unified methodology was created by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.
Collect at market rates from the insurance company.

What kind of car, year of manufacture? Are there no duplicates or used ones?

VW Passat, '15

What kind of car, year of manufacture? Are there no duplicates or used ones?

Spare parts, yes, it’s easy to check on the RSA website, but initially find the codes yourself, because the wrong ones may be included in the calculation.
Only the original.

Why, some issue them without problems.

In the letter of the Ministry of Justice dated January 22, 2015 N 23-301, it is said:
To recommend not using the information databases (directories) mentioned in the Unified Methodology of the Bank of Russia, in cases where:
a) they do not contain direct links to the sources of information used in their compilation;
b) information on the cost of materials, spare parts and the cost of one standard hour of work in information databases (directories) differs by more than 10% from the cost of materials, spare parts and the cost of one standard hour of work, calculated by an expert taking into account approaches and principles specified in clause 7.2 of the Bank of Russia Methodology, according to traditional sources of information in the relevant region.

Does this letter and recommendations have legal force?

The court of first instance established that, in accordance with the Unified Methodology, the basis for the formation of directories should be information on prices collected in cities with a population of at least one million people and in all administrative centers of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation for each economic region. However, the directories compiled by RCA are based on price research conducted in only 11 cities. In this case, it is impossible to verify the compliance of the average cost of spare parts and materials contained in them with the sources of SAR information.

Based on the evidence presented in the case file, the court of first instance also established that the price information necessary to determine the amount of costs for restoration repairs was adjusted downward by applying possible discounts to the cost of materials provided to service repair companies (wholesale buyers).

The court of first instance considered it proven that the prices of individual spare parts and standard hours indicated in the directories turned out to be significantly lower than the prices prevailing on the market. This circumstance, together with the above, leads to an economically unjustified underestimation of insurance payments to consumers (insurers).

Taking into account the above, it should be recognized as correct the conclusion of the court of first instance that the applicant influenced the reliability of determining the amount of costs for the restoration of vehicles, acting for the benefit of the insurers, whose collective representative (association) RSA is by virtue of the law and its constituent documents , and to the detriment of consumers of financial services - vehicle owners (policyholders).

Appealing the unified MTPL methodology

To make the calculations clear and transparent, a new guide has been created. But the algorithm uses averages and does not allow you to get a full refund.

The Supreme Court, having considered the applications of vehicle owners, refused to satisfy them. The court came to the conclusion that the regulatory requirements of the methodology do not contain prohibitions or other legal mechanisms for calculating the amount of costs associated with the restoration of a damaged car, which prevent compensation for losses. According to the court, the fact of compensation for losses by a specific insurer in the amount of expenses less than necessary to bring the vehicle to the condition in which it was before the occurrence of the insured event is not related to the use of the methodology. Attempts to recover the difference between new and old parts from those responsible for the accidents also ended in vain. As a result, the victims appealed to the Constitutional Court, challenging a number of articles of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. According to the applicants, due to the uncertainty of these standards, they were unable to recover damages from those responsible for the accidents without taking into account wear and tear of parts.

Example of calculations using the Unified Methodology

It is necessary to remember that in order to receive compensation it will be necessary to perform certain actions and submit a whole package of various types of documentation to the insurance company. If, based on the results of the inspection, the average deviation of the recommended retail price of the vehicle manufacturer is no more than 10 percent of the average cost of the totality of all parts for each region, obtained by statistical observation, a decision is made to use the data of the recommended retail price of the vehicle manufacturer in full in the average reference book. cost for this brand.

Basically, all non-state experts are on the register of so-called expert technicians and if the cost of the spare part. parts will be applied at regional prices, which can be more than 10%, then insurance companies can complain to the RSA, and hence penalties for the expert from the RSA. Moreover, the employers for the appraiser are insurance companies, which, if the expert technician carries out calculations at prices other than the Central Bank, will simply stop petitioning the court to appoint an examination for this expert. And for some reason, judges appoint only those appraisers who are nominated by the plaintiff or defendant.

The document includes thirteen parameters that affect restoration repairs (Regulation of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation No. 432-P). Thus, the price depends on belonging to the economic region (there are thirteen in total), the cost of spare parts and repairs. According to the Russian Union of Auto Insurers (RSA), the price of repairs depends on the popularity of the vehicle.

On September 19, 2014, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, under N 432-P, adopted the “Regulation on a unified methodology for determining the amount of costs for restoration repairs in relation to a damaged vehicle,” which was registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia on October 3, 2014, under N 34245.

The Russian Union of Motor Insurers, one of the key activities of which is to represent and protect the interests of insurers related to the implementation of compulsory insurance, is an association of insurance organizations. At the same time, this association of insurers also makes compensation payments for insurance companies deprived of a license, according to price guides that it itself generates and approves. It turns out that updating the directories was actually entrusted to insurers, in whose interests it is to reduce the amount of payments to victims. At the same time, there is no responsibility for the compilers of reference books for falsification of data and manipulation of the results obtained. The court also rejected the antimonopoly argument that RSA occupies a dominant position in the market for such directories, and indicated that a dominant position in the relevant market cannot arise without connection with the implementation of business activities.

Car owners are dissatisfied with the Unified Methodology for determining the amount of costs for restoration repairs in relation to a damaged vehicle, approved by the Bank of Russia, and do not abandon attempts to challenge its application. Last year, citizens appealed to the Supreme Court with a demand to declare this method partially ineffective. In particular, those of its provisions, according to which the determination of the cost of a new spare part, the installation of which is assigned to replace the component product (part, assembly and assembly) to be replaced, is carried out by using reference books for parts (assemblies, assemblies).

The Economic Collegium listened to these arguments of the Federal Antimonopoly Service, which overturned the judicial acts of appeal and cassation and “upheld” the decision of the first instance. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that RSA has a dominant position in the MTPL services market as a collective representative of the interests of insurers and recognized the correctness of the actions of antimonopoly officers in qualifying the organization’s actions.

It is also necessary to familiarize yourself in advance with the payment rules established by current legislation, as well as the regulations of the insurance company itself.

If it is not possible to carry out calculations using systems contained in automated software systems, the amount of costs for materials is calculated using ... the formula ... In this case, the cost of one unit of material of the i-th type is determined using electronic databases of cost information (directories).

Four categories of specialists who are required to use the universal payment method:

Representatives of the insurer who inspect the vehicle.
Licensed experts.
Certified companies.
Forensic experts.

Another stumbling block was the Unified Methodology for determining the amount of costs for restoration repairs in relation to a damaged vehicle, approved by the Central Bank.

Since October 2014, a unified methodology for calculating damage under compulsory motor liability insurance has been in force. Insurance companies and independent assessors should use this guidance in their work. Today, all owners of vehicles operating on the roads must insure their motor third-party liability.

Advantages of a universal payment method

I am addressing those who are in the know. A unified methodology for determining the costs of restoration repairs has been introduced. Prices for spare parts and standard hours are taken from RSA reference books.

Previously, insurance was often not enough to repair a car. Drivers have to demand termination of the contract and seek payment of insurance compensation through the court.

Mikhail, it looks like they’ve already done some kind of examination for me. with a letter from the Ministry of Justice. and with real prices, not according to reference books. standard hours according to reference books, prices - according to statistical observation. I'm going to court with her. Let's see what happens. How did things go for you?

According to the applicants, these provisions contradict the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law of April 25, 2002 N 40-FZ “On compulsory insurance of civil liability of vehicle owners” and violate the right of the victim to full compensation for losses caused to him.

You, Nadezhda, first need to conduct your auto technical examination on the basis of the inspection report, that is, an assessment, and based on this examination, file a claim.

Certificate El No. FS 77-31590. Issued by the Federal Service for Supervision of Mass Communications, Communications and Cultural Heritage Protection.

Tyurnikov N.S. is in doubt.
also establishes the powers of the Central Bank of Russia to issue such regulations. The complaint was sent to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation both electronically and by Russian post. The main goal of this type of practice is to reduce the load on ships, as well as streamline the collection of funds for car repairs.

With the current dynamics of rising prices for spare parts and repair work, this leads to a total underestimation of insurance payments for compulsory motor liability insurance.
Both regulatory documents mentioned above cover in sufficient detail both the conditions for receiving funds and the rules for preparing documentation.

A sample is considered sufficient if it contains three values. If there is one price in the array (the same values of all sample indicators), it is considered average; if there are two prices, the smaller one is chosen; if there are three or more repeating prices, the most frequently occurring price is selected. If there are no repeating prices, the price corresponding to the middle of the variation series is selected. With an even number of observations, when the middle of the variation series corresponds to two prices, the smaller one is chosen. If there are two identical groups of repeating prices, the smaller one is selected. If there are several groups of repeating prices, the one closest to the middle of the variation series is selected (if there are two, then the smaller one).

This did not stop citizens, and they tried to challenge the provisions of the Federal Law “On Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Vehicle Owners” in the Constitutional Court, according to which an independent technical examination is carried out using the already mentioned methodology.
According to the applicants, this provision violates their constitutional rights, since it provides for determining the amount of damage using only a single methodology, thereby excluding the possibility of challenging the amount of damage caused if it does not correspond to market prices, which deprives them of the right to compensation for the damage caused in full. The judges of the Constitutional Court considered four complaints at once in one day, and in all cases the applicants were rejected. Determining the cost of a new spare part, the installation of which is assigned to replace the component product (part, assembly and assembly) to be replaced, is carried out by using electronic databases of cost information (directories) in relation to parts (assemblies, assemblies).
The Russian Union of Motor Insurers, one of the key activities of which is to represent and protect the interests of insurers related to the implementation of compulsory insurance, is an association of insurance organizations.
At the same time, this association of insurers also makes compensation payments for insurance companies deprived of a license, according to price guides that it itself generates and approves. The Government of the Russian Federation has published its amendments to the law on compulsory motor liability insurance. They provide for a certain procedure for appealing actions or inactions of insurers, provide the right to choose the type of compensation to the victim (money or repairs), and also transfer the right to approve a unified methodology for calculating damage to the Central Bank.

Unified MTPL methodology

The introduction of compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance (MTPL) has caused many different disputes and misunderstandings. Many vehicle owners were against this type of insurance.

Dear readers! The article talks about typical ways to resolve legal issues, but each case is individual. If you want to find out how to solve your particular problem , contact a consultant:

+7 (812) 317-50-97 (Saint Petersburg)

APPLICATIONS AND CALLS ARE ACCEPTED 24/7 and 7 days a week.

It's fast and FREE !

But over time, everyone “reconciled”, although in practice various controversial issues arose, as evidenced by the large number of lawsuits related to compulsory motor liability insurance.

Many disputes were related to the calculation of the amount of damage that was caused to the vehicle. In practice, various calculation methods were used, which were not mandatory and were only advisory in nature.

What it is

As mentioned above, in practice, many disputes arose due to the lack of a unified methodology for calculating the amount of damage that was caused to a vehicle.

Several techniques have been developed and used by both insurance companies and experts. But these methods were only advisory in nature.

For example, the insurance company used one calculation method, the owner of the vehicle did not agree with the amount of damage received and turned to an independent expert who used a completely different method.

As a result of the examination, an independent expert gave a completely different amount of damage, and thus the legal dispute was ready.

That is why there was a need to develop a unified methodology that would be mandatory and that would be used by everyone (both insurance companies, courts and independent experts).

Accordingly, a similar methodology was developed by the Russian Union of Auto Insurers (RUA). Of course, the development of this document was carried out by RSA, but its official author is the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.

From what period did it come into force?

The unified methodology for calculating damage under compulsory motor liability insurance was adopted by the relevant Regulation of the Bank of the Russian Federation No. 432-P dated September 19, 2014 and came into force on October 17, 2014.

It was from this moment that the use of this technique became mandatory for both insurance companies and independent experts.

Of course, this document was adopted relatively recently, but in essence it reflects a methodology that has been used for a long time. The document only made this methodology mandatory.

Moreover, this technique is mandatory for use only for the settlement of legal relations that have arisen between the insurance company and individuals. In other cases, this technique is not mandatory.

For example, if a dispute arose between the owner of the vehicle and the service center that repaired the car, then this technique is not mandatory and is only advisory.

Of course, the conditions of this methodology can be specified during the trial, but it is not mandatory, and the court may not take it into account.

What does it include

The Unified Methodology is a rather extensive and large document, but it is advisable that all vehicle owners familiarize themselves with it.

The method contains the following information:

the process of identifying damage and the procedure for determining its nature;
procedure for studying the circumstances of an insured event;
procedure for calculating the amount of damage;
methods for calculating the residual value of a vehicle before and after damage;
the procedure for compiling and approving reference books that provide for the cost of spare parts for vehicles.

The unified methodology also has various applications that are an integral part of it.

The following information can be found in the attachments:

procedure for photographing the scene of the incident;
various typical definitions and characteristics;
odds, other indicators and much more.

From the above we can conclude that the unified MTPL methodology is a rather large document necessary for the proper organization of the work of insurance companies.

After the adoption of this document, the number of lawsuits decreased significantly, which indicates the effectiveness of this technique.

How is the unified methodology for calculating damage under compulsory motor liability insurance applied?

As mentioned above, a unified methodology is mandatory for resolving legal relations between the insurance company and the client.

This is a pretty good way to resolve possible conflicts and disputes. How is the unified MTPL methodology used?

Car wear and tear accounting

Vehicle wear and tear is one of the indicators that is taken into account both during insurance and payment of insurance benefits, and during an accident to determine the amount of damage.

In this case, the calculation of wear and tear is carried out on the date of the accident, and not on the date of assessment of the damage caused. You also need to know that the calculation is carried out only for those spare parts that need to be replaced.

If a particular part of the vehicle is subject to repair, then wear and tear is not calculated.

In addition, wear calculation is carried out only for spare parts, and for materials used during repairs, this calculation is not performed.

But the legislation provides for some exceptions in which depreciation is not calculated.

Such exceptions include airbags, as well as other components, if they are faulty the vehicle cannot be operated.

If earlier the percentage of wear was a maximum of 80%, today this figure is 50%. The amount of wear depends on the period of use of the damaged part, as well as on the mileage of the vehicle.

For car tires, characteristics such as tread depth, tire life, etc. are taken into account.

Wear is calculated using the following formula:

I_ki=100×(〖1st〗^((∆_t×T_ki+∆_L+L_ki))),

Odds

The text of the methodology contains a fairly large number of coefficients that are necessary to calculate the amount of damage caused to a vehicle.

Such coefficients make it possible to determine as accurately as possible the amount of damage caused to the vehicle. Basically, the coefficients are indicated in the 6th and 9th appendices of this methodology.

The coefficients that are most important are the following:

ΔL and ΔT - these coefficients make it possible to calculate the magnitude of the impact on the wear and tear of the vehicle and the period of its use;
Appendix 6 specifies coefficients that make it possible to determine the amount of additional wear on various parts and components of the vehicle;
Appendix 9 indicates the Kv¸ coefficient, which makes it possible to determine the period of use of the vehicle at the date of its damage.

These are not all the coefficients that are provided in the Methodology: there are actually a lot of them.

You can find a table of payments under compulsory motor liability insurance for personal injury here.

Wear calculation

The unified MTPL methodology also provides for the procedure for calculating wear and tear and damage.

To determine the amount of damage caused to a vehicle, the following indicators are used:

expenses needed to repair damaged parts of the vehicle;
materials needed to completely repair a damaged vehicle;
expenses necessary to purchase damaged spare parts;
additional costs required to repair the vehicle.

The amount required to completely restore a damaged vehicle is the sum of the above indicators.

In this case, in accordance with the rules of the methodology, the resulting amount must be rounded to the nearest hundred rubles.

There are other indicators and coefficients that affect the amount of money to be paid to the owner of the vehicle. Such indicators include the Administrative Code.

This indicator makes it possible to take into account all mechanical damage to the vehicle. This indicator is given in the 10th appendix of the Methodology.

In addition, RSA has developed a unified price database, which contains information on the cost of a fairly large number of different spare parts.

The unified database indicates the average cost of certain spare parts for individual regions of the country.

But you need to know that a single price database does not contain information about all spare parts for all vehicles.

In particular, here you can find the cost of spare parts and components for vehicles that were produced after 2002.

If the vehicle was produced earlier, then it is impossible to find the cost of spare parts for this vehicle in the unified price database. To do this, you need to resort to the average market value.

In addition, it is impossible to find information on the cost of spare parts for motorcycles and premium cars in a unified price database.

A unified MTPL methodology was developed to determine the amount of damage that was caused to a vehicle.

Of course, the cost of spare parts and vehicle repairs change quite often, which is why there is a need to make changes to the unified methodology for compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance.

RSA has developed a number of amendments that should be made to the unified methodology. It was planned that these changes would be made in 2019, but to date there have been no changes yet, and the unified methodology operates without any changes. Probably, amendments will be made next year.

Appeal

Of course, a unified MTPL methodology was adopted to create uniform rules and procedures for calculating the amount of damage that was caused to a vehicle, but many vehicle owners were still dissatisfied.

It is in such a situation that the question arises about how the unified MTPL methodology is challenged.

But in reality, appealing the method is almost impossible. This is a legal act that is binding on both the insurance company and vehicle owners.

Accordingly, as a legislative act it is subject to mandatory execution.

However, an appeal against the method is still possible. This can be done only to determine the compliance of its specific norms with the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Only if specific norms of the methodology are found to be inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and violate the rights and legitimate interests of citizens, they may not be applied.

Moreover, in this case, only those norms that were recognized as inconsistent with the current Constitution are not applied.

The rest of the unified methodology will retain its legal force and will be used in the future.

Accordingly, appealing the unified MTPL methodology is not the easiest thing. This will require special knowledge as well as experience in the insurance industry.

If the owner of a vehicle decides to challenge specific standards and points of the unified methodology, it is recommended to seek help from a qualified and experienced specialist who can help him.

From the above we can conclude that the development of a unified methodology for compulsory motor liability insurance was aimed at creating uniform rules and procedures for calculating the amount of damage that was caused to a vehicle.

Thanks to the presence of such rules, a unified practice for resolving disputes and paying monetary compensation was created, which in turn reduced the number of lawsuits.

But not all problems have been clearly resolved, and in practice various difficulties arise even when using a single methodology. Of course, the relevant authorities are actively working to eliminate such problems and difficulties.

How to calculate your MTPL insurance refund, see the page.

Video: Legal educational program - Unified methodology for calculating damage under compulsory motor insurance

Due to frequent changes in legislation, information sometimes becomes outdated faster than we can update it on the website.
All cases are very individual and depend on many factors. Basic information does not guarantee a solution to your specific problems.

That's why FREE expert consultants work for you around the clock!

Ask a question via the form (below) or via online chat
Call the hotline:
- Moscow and the Region - +7 (499) 110-56-12
- St. Petersburg and region - +7 (812) 317-50-97
- Regions - 8 (800) 222-69-48

APPLICATIONS AND CALLS ARE ACCEPTED 24/7 and 7 days a week.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 19, 2018 N 306-KG17-17947 in case N A65-16238/2016

SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

dated February 19, 2018 N 306-KG17-17947

Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation T.V. Zavyalova, having studied, based on the materials of the requested case, the cassation appeals of the Federal Antimonopoly Service and the Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service for the Republic of Tatarstan against the decision of the Eleventh Arbitration Court of Appeal dated May 30, 2017 in case No. A65-16238/2016 of the Arbitration Court of the Republic Tatarstan and the resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga District dated 09/08/2017 on the same case

on the application of the Russian Union of Auto Insurers (hereinafter referred to as the applicant, RSA) to the Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service for the Republic of Tatarstan (hereinafter referred to as the antimonopoly authority, office) to invalidate the decision and order dated April 13, 2016 in case No. 05-387/2015,

with the participation of third parties who do not make independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute: the Federal Antimonopoly Service (hereinafter referred to as the FAS Russia), the Central Bank of Russia represented by the branch - the National Bank for the Republic of Tatarstan of the Volga-Vyatka Main Directorate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the Primorsky Public Organization for Protection consumer rights "People's Control", limited liability company "Forensic Expertise Center", Andrey Ivanovich Khramov, Rodion Valerievich Rodionov, Roman Yuryevich Seryshev, Nail Kamilovich Salakhov, Antonina Sergeevna Pavlova, Andrey Yuryevich Devyatkov, Victor Alexandrovich Lee, Ilya Sergeevich Getmanenko,

By decision of the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Tatarstan dated February 28, 2017, the claim submitted by the RCA was denied.

By the decision of the Eleventh Arbitration Court of Appeal dated May 30, 2017, the decision of the first instance court was canceled and the stated claim was satisfied.

The Arbitration Court of the Volga District, by its resolution dated September 8, 2017, left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.

Having disagreed with the judicial acts of the courts of appeal and cassation adopted in the case, the FAS Russia and the department filed cassation complaints to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, asking them to cancel them, citing significant violations of the rules of law by these courts.

The grounds for the cancellation or modification of judicial acts by the Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in cassation proceedings are significant violations of the norms of substantive law and (or) norms of procedural law, which influenced the outcome of the case and without the elimination of which it is impossible to restore and protect the violated rights, freedoms, legal interests in the field of entrepreneurial and other economic activities, as well as the protection of public interests protected by law (Part 1 of Article 291.11 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation).

When studying the arguments of cassation complaints of the FAS Russia and the department based on the materials of the requested case, the grounds were established for transferring cassation complaints for consideration in a court session of the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

As follows from the case materials and established by the courts, the basis for initiating case No. 05-387/2015 against RSA on grounds of violation of Part 1 of Article 10 of the Federal Law of July 26, 2006 No. 135-FZ “On the Protection of Competition” (hereinafter referred to as the Law on the Protection of Competition) competition) was prompted by an appeal from a citizen, in the opinion of which the reference books of the average cost of spare parts, materials and standard hours of work compiled by RSA are biased and do not reflect the average market prices prevailing in the market for the provision of vehicle maintenance services in the city of Kazan. As a result, the prices established in the directory do not allow for the restoration of a car, since they do not take into account, among other things, the costs of delivering goods and services, and do not contain information about the sources of prices.

As part of the consideration of the above case by the commission of the antimonopoly authority authorized by the FAS Russia to consider these materials, the following was noted.

The decision to approve the reference books and to begin their use from 12/01/2014 was made by the Presidium of the RSA on 10/16/2014. These directories were valid until 05/01/2015 (the first updated version, adopted by the committee on 04/07/2015, approved by the RSA Presidium on 04/16/2015).

The directories were compiled based on the results of research conducted in May - June 2014. When studying prices for spare parts, materials and standard hours of work, the methodology approved by the Presidium of the RSA on March 14, 2014 was used, which does not correspond to the methodology approved by the Bank of Russia; based on the results of a comparison of information from the online service (http://prices.autoins.ru/priceAutoParts/), information from official dealers on the purchase and sale of spare parts, as well as information on prices presented on the website http://www.exist.ru / it has been established that the prices of individual spare parts and standard hours from the online service are significantly lower than the prices prevailing on the market; directories compiled by RSA do not allow checking the average cost of spare parts and materials indicated in the directories with sources of information; powers to develop methodological support for the formation of directories, to collect and process primary information on prices for spare parts, materials and standard hours of work, as well as to determine the average cost of spare parts, materials and standard hours of work when determining the amount of costs for restoration repairs are granted RSA in the absence of proper control on the part of the Bank of Russia and the expert community over the accuracy and completeness of the information contained in the directories.

According to the antimonopoly authority, initially granting RSA the authority to compile directories contradicts the Federal Law of April 25, 2002 N 40-FZ (as amended on March 28, 2017) “On compulsory civil liability insurance of vehicle owners” (hereinafter referred to as the MTPL Law).

During the period of validity of the reference books, the net profit of RSA increased from 201,785,000 rubles for the first half of 2014 to 788,728,000 rubles for the same period in 2015, which also indicates, in the opinion of the antimonopoly authority, that RSA has the ability to influence the determination of the amount of expenses for restoration repair of vehicles, by establishing in reference books the average cost of spare parts, materials and standard hours of work below the price actually operating in the market for vehicle repair services.

Taking into account the above, the antimonopoly authority came to the conclusion that the applicant occupies a dominant position in the market for providing electronic databases on average prices for spare parts, materials and standard hours of work when determining the amount of costs for the restoration of a damaged vehicle, and its actions lead to or may lead to economically unjustified payments by insurers to victims of damages under compulsory insurance contracts for civil liability of vehicle owners (MTPL) and infringement of the interests of an indefinite number of persons.

Based on the results of the consideration of the case, the department made a decision on April 13, 2016 to recognize RSA as violating part 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Protection of Competition, and issued an order according to which the applicant must create directories of the average cost of spare parts, materials and standard hours of work in strict accordance with the Regulations on a unified methodology for determining the amount of costs for restoration repairs in relation to a damaged vehicle, approved by the Bank of Russia on September 19, 2014 N 432-P (hereinafter referred to as Regulation N 432-P).

Refusing to satisfy the stated requirements, the court of first instance supported the conclusions of the antimonopoly authority regarding the dominant position of RCA in the market for services for the provision of electronic databases within the borders of the Russian Federation and the presence in its actions of a violation of Part 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Protection of Competition.

The appellate court, whose conclusions were supported by the district court, proceeded from the fact that the applicant, when compiling the directories, acted within the framework of the powers granted by the Bank of Russia in accordance with the legislation governing relations in the field of compulsory civil liability insurance of vehicle owners.

The use of the Unified Methodology for determining the amount of costs for restoration repairs in relation to a damaged vehicle, approved by the Bank of Russia (hereinafter referred to as the Unified Methodology), is provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 12.1 of the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance.

Chapter 7 of the Unified Methodology provides for the procedure for the formation and approval of directories of the average cost of spare parts, materials and standard hours of work when determining the amount of costs for restoration repairs in relation to a damaged vehicle, taking into account the established boundaries of regional commodity markets (economic regions), these directories are formed in the form electronic databases (clause 7.1 of the Unified Methodology). Directories are compiled and approved by a professional association of insurers created in accordance with the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance, taking into account the boundaries of the economic regions of the Russian Federation specified in Appendix No. 4 to this Methodology.

RSA was included by the Bank of Russia in the Unified State Register of Insurers and Insurer Associations as a professional association of insurers, empowered to compile directories free of charge.

In this regard, the courts of appeal and cassation noted that a dominant position in the relevant market cannot arise without connection with the implementation of business activities.

Since the formation of directories of the average cost of spare parts, materials and standard hours of work is not carried out by the applicant as part of the provision of paid services and is not aimed at generating profit or other economic benefits, RSA does not provide insurance services, policyholders and beneficiaries are not consumers of its services, therefore, in the case under consideration, there is no product and product market in the sense provided for by the Law on Protection of Competition.

At the same time, a violation of the procedure for the formation of these directories, in the opinion of the antimonopoly authority, cannot lead to the prevention, restriction, elimination of competition and (or) infringement of the interests of other persons (business entities) in the field of business activity or an indefinite number of consumers due to the lack of an appropriate product market .

Expressing disagreement with the judicial acts of the courts of appeal and cassation adopted in the case, the FAS Russia and the department provide the following justification for their position on this dispute.

Electronic databases on average prices for spare parts, materials and standard hours of work when determining the amount of costs for the restoration of a damaged vehicle (hereinafter referred to as Electronic Databases) are goods intended for putting into circulation and do not have the force of the MTPL Law substitute.

In accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 4 of the Law on the Protection of Competition, an economic entity is, among other things, a non-profit organization carrying out activities that generate income for it. Since RSA provides the ability to use directories by insurers, expert organizations and expert technicians through automated software systems used to calculate the cost of restoration repairs, as well as through the information and telecommunications network "Internet" upon individual requests on a paid basis, RSA is the only economic entity in of the Russian Federation, selling electronic databases, and other business entities do not have the opportunity to operate in this market, therefore, the applicant is an economic entity in relation to paragraph 5 of Article 4 of the Law on Protection of Competition.

According to the antimonopoly authorities, RSA did not comply with the requirements of the Unified Methodology, in particular, when researching prices for spare parts and standard hours of work, RSA did not comply with the established procedure for studying prices in cities with a population of at least one million people and in all administrative centers of the constituent entities Russian Federation for each economic region; the reference books were compiled based on the results of research conducted in May - June 2014, that is, before the approval of the Unified Methodology by the Central Bank of Russia. Based on the results of a comparison of information from official dealers on the purchase and sale of spare parts, as well as information on prices presented on the website htt://www.exist.ru/, it was found that the prices of individual spare parts and standard hours indicated in directories are significantly lower prices prevailing on the market.

The presence of unreliable information about the cost of restoration repairs in directories is confirmed by the position of the Federal Budgetary Institution of the Russian Federal Center for Forensic Expertise under the Ministry of Justice of Russia, according to which the heads of regional forensic centers are recommended not to use directories that do not contain links to sources of information, or the prices in which differ by more than 10 % of prices in the corresponding region.

The above arguments of the antimonopoly authorities deserve attention, in connection with which the cassation complaints of the FAS of Russia and the department should be transferred with the case for consideration in a court session of the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

Based on the above, guided by Articles 291.9 - 291.11 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

transfer the cassation appeals of the Federal Antimonopoly Service and the Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service for the Republic of Tatarstan with the case for consideration in a court session of the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.