"Not obligated." Insurance company denied a Belarusian's policy renewal after a large payout

The insurance company told the man that it was "inexpedient" to continue the contract with him, because the policy should generate profit, not losses, writes Myfin.by.

Piotr has his own company in the micro-tourism sector. His clients actively go on horse riding routes and kayak trips. To ensure maximum safety for people during their travels, the entrepreneur introduced mandatory insurance against injuries and accidents.

— For two years, my company insured about a hundred tourists with "Belnaftastrach," bringing the insurance company stable and quite good profits. I decided to insure myself as well, but the standard payout limit of 5,000 rubles did not satisfy me.

Since large insurance sums (over 20,000 rubles) require approval from the company's management, Piotr was individually approved for a maximum insurance sum of 50,000 rubles. As a result, he paid more than 1,200 rubles for the policy. The sum is not small, but the man did not want to save on his health.

Approximately six months later, an insured event occurred.

— I fell off my bike and broke two bones in my elbow. The treatment lasted more than three months, and rehabilitation is still ongoing. For the fracture, "Belnaftastrach" paid me 5,000 rubles.

In June, Piotr severely cut his leg during another rafting trip. He spent a week in the hospital, and when he came to process the payment, it turned out that the policy had already expired.

— It turned out that no one was going to remind me about the renewal, although previously managers always called in advance. I insure other objects with the same company, including my car, and there have never been such problems. When asked why I was not warned, "Belnaftastrach" replied that they are not obligated to do so, and referred to sending notifications via Viber, which I don't even have on my phone.

In the central office, the businessman was directed to another department, where the true reason was stated: the insurance renewal was denied because insuring him further was "inexpedient" — the previous payout for the broken elbow was too large.

— It turns out that insurance companies are only interested in receiving contributions from clients who never get injured. I refused to reduce the insurance sum myself, and the company did not want to continue the contract under the previous conditions.

According to Piotr, this is already the second time a major insurer has let him down. Earlier, while in Georgia, he injured his leg with a policy for those traveling abroad. Local doctors mistakenly diagnosed a bruise instead of a fracture. Piotr decided not to spend the insurance company's money abroad and returned to Belarus for further treatment.

— However, my payment was refused, citing a bureaucratic nuance: since assistance was not provided in Georgia, the foreign policy is not valid, and a separate insurance is needed for Belarus. It turns out I saved the company money, but was left without a payout myself.

It was after that incident that Piotr took out the Belarusian policy for 50,000 rubles. But as soon as the first serious insured event occurred, the company paid the money and immediately thereafter refused to extend the contract for the next term.

Insurance company: we exercised our right

We asked representatives of the insurance company to comment on this situation. Here's the answer we received:

"Piotr concluded 15 insurance contracts with the insurance company "Belnaftastrach" in the period from 2024 to June 2026.

Of these: three for compulsory civil liability insurance of vehicle owners, eight for voluntary accident and illness insurance for travel abroad for himself and his family members, and another four for voluntary accident insurance for himself. The total amount of insurance premiums paid was 1,243.68 rubles.

During the specified period, the insurance company made insurance payments to Piotr three times (in July 2024, July 2025, and August 2025) in connection with the occurrence of insured events.

The payout level for this insured person was 507%.

Considering such a payout level and evaluating the possible risks of future periods, the company exercised its right to refuse to conclude a voluntary insurance contract (Art. 391 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Belarus).

Regarding informing policyholders, ZAST "Belnaftastrach," as a client-oriented company with high service standards, pays great attention to service and, if the client has given consent to receive messages via Viber within the framework of insurance contract support, always sends reminders about the need to pay the next premium or about the expiration of the insurance contract."

• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0