Will there be new protests by drivers from the taxi industry, after their mandatory "Civil Liability" insurance was lifted. Who has what rights… Attorney Stoyan Chatalbashev spoke to FAKTI.
- Attorney Chatalbashev, a few days ago the taxi industry blocked cities throughout the country, and the reason was the drastic increase in the price of "Civil Liability" insurance. for them. To date, have you found out what has dictated this drastic increase in the cost of insurance?
- Unfortunately, even to this day, no one has understood what caused the increase in the price of the insurance. There is no real data and no real statistics to justify such an increase. There are interviews and claims that taxis are risky. There really aren't any published statistics on whether they are risky and how risky they are. What is important in this case. The important thing is that the Insurance Code (IC) states when it can be adjusted, i.e. increases or decreases the insurance premium under mandatory insurance "Civil Liability". of motorists. In Art. 490 para. 5 of the CC it is stated “ The insurance premium under compulsory insurance "Civil Liability" of motorists is adjusted by the insurer according to uniform requirements for adjusting the insurance premium depending on the driver's behavior while driving on the roads and/or the damage caused ("bonus-malus" system). The uniform requirements, as well as the terms and conditions for their application, are determined by a joint regulation of the commission, the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Minister of Transport, Information Technologies and Communications, and the opinion of the Guarantee Fund is also taken into account during the drafting.“< br />
The law itself states that the reason for canceling the insurance is only the driver's behavior when driving on the roads and/or the damage caused.
Not the behavior of the owner of the motor vehicle, not the behavior of drivers of a certain industry or age, but the behavior of the specific driver. Therefore, it can be said that there is no legal basis to raise the insurance as is done in the case of a certain group of drivers. A specific driver's insurance can be raised or reduced accordingly. They will immediately say – yes, but such an Ordinance was not adopted as a “bonus-malus” or as the Code indicates uniform requirements. It has not actually been adopted, but even if it is adopted, it cannot, as a by-law, contradict the CC and must follow what is reflected in it, that the premium or the price of the insurance can be raised only for the specific driver. Since there is no Ordinance, the law applies – if there are violations by the driver, the price should be raised only for him, but not for taxi cars in general.
My view is that this increase is against the law and should be stopped by the relevant authorities. - The “Civil Liability“ insurance is required to drive a car. How can a person resist when they increase something that is mandatory? - It cannot be opposed in any way except by contacting the institutions exercising supervision over insurance or by forms of peaceful protests to advertise a certain position and draw public attention to the problem. We must emphasize that according to Article 2 of the Code of Conduct “The objectives of this code are:
1. ensuring protection of the interests of users of insurance services
2. creating conditions for the development of a stable, transparent and efficient insurance market
The dissatisfaction of the taxi industry is dictated precisely by the fact that there is no transparent insurance market and a request to protect their interests as users of insurance services.
Achieving these objectives must be ensured by effective supervision of the insurance sector, especially when it comes to compulsory insurance. Because the purpose of the Code and of compulsory insurance is to guarantee certain rights of the users of the insured and the persons who will be damaged and will be entitled to compensation under this insurance, and not to guarantee the profits of the insurance companies.
- The Association of Bulgarian Insurers (ABZ) announced that taxi drivers are risky – whatever that means. Do you take that as an argument for the increase…
- Look, no one would accept something without being convinced of it with the relevant evidence. There are none so far. Tomorrow, if city transport makes the travel ticket BGN 10 with the argument that costs have increased, would anyone accept this without the corresponding economic justification, without the corresponding figures. Once such a statistic is claimed to exist, let them show it. In 2018 the insurers claimed that if no limits were introduced on benefits for non-property, the insurance would become BGN 1,000, that pensioners will have to set aside 2 or 3 pensions to pay their GO insurance that they will go bankrupt insurers.
A Law amending the Insurance Code and introducing such limits for benefits was even voted on in the first reading, which was not adopted due to the public reaction. And did the price of the insurance rise to BGN 1,000 – didn't get up. Now there is talk again that if we don't raise the taxis, we will have to raise all the drivers. Again, no arguments, no statistics, no analysis. And yet one public group opposes another public group just to justify raising the price of insurance.
- Now the taxis, then all the drivers… Could this increase for taxi drivers be a test of how society will react?
- Until it becomes clear how the tariffs for this mandatory insurance are determined, everyone can raise the price as they wish. And there must be transparency in how the price is determined, not least because it is a matter of mandatory insurance. When it comes to voluntary insurance, each market participant can set the prices as they want, and the consumer will choose whether to insure or not. The only analysis of general liability insurance published on the FSC website is dated 07/20/2018. and covers the years from 2012-2017. A careful reading of this analysis indicates that, especially for passenger cars, insurers make a profit from motor vehicle insurance in the amount of 70 million. BGN per year. Since then, no such statistics have been published. And this is clearly so that the profits from this compulsory insurance do not become clear. And without such an analysis, there is no transparency.
Look, the problem is that you can't increase the price of individual groups of cars in principle, or of individual trading companies, because a car they own has caused damage.
It is reasonable to raise the price of a specific driver only. Whoever is a bad driver should pay more. At the moment, the situation of taxi drivers is like that of sheep, which are slaughtered on suspicion and danger that they are sick with the plague. All under one denominator are slaughtered regardless of whether it is a sick animal or not, because it is a sheep and it is in a certain region. It's the same with taxi insurance. Since it's a taxi, 200% markup regardless of whether it's driven by a gold ticket driver or a systemic road bully.
- After the protest of the taxi drivers, the Council of Ministers decided to intervene, again raising the topic of the introduction of the “bonus-malus“ system. We've been talking for years, but it's not happening. What is your explanation…
- Such an Ordinance should have been made a long time ago. There were also public discussions of the regulation on the "bonus-malus" system, but it is still not a fact. There is no explanation. Or rather there is – without clear rules, there is no transparency in the market, no explanation of how the price of the compulsory insurance is formed. Without clear rules, everyone can do whatever they want.
- At the moment, property liability is insured - the car. Where does the driver stay…
- The driver remains in Art. 490 paragraph 5 of the CC and with the hope that finally someone will decide to apply the Code in practice and ask for the introduction of clear rules for determining the price of the GO. Liability for culpably caused damages is insured. The responsibility lies with the person, not the thing. The car is driven by a driver, parked by a driver. His liability must be insured, and his qualities must influence and determine the price of the insurance.
- Now we have an interesting case study. A taxi driver pays BGN 3,000. motor vehicle insurance, and as the owner of a personal vehicle he pays BGN 300. insurance. We are talking about the same person… That's how it comes out, but what's the logic…
- There is no logic. The same person cannot be risky as a taxi driver and not risky as a private car driver. There is no reason for such a difference.