Decision No. 3/3 of 20 January 2026 regarding petitions registered with the National Financial Market Commission concerning SA ACORD GRUP

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
NATIONAL FINANCIAL MARKET COMMISSION
DECISION
20 January 2026 No. 3/3
Regarding the petitions registered with the National Financial Market Commission under No. 8299 and No. 8567 on 14.11.2025 and, respectively, on 27.11.2025, in relation to SA "ACORD GRUP" SA

On 14.11.2025, and additionally on 27.11.2025, within the framework of the National Financial Market Commission (CNPF/authority), petitions were registered (under No. 8299 and, respectively, No. 8567) submitted by Ms [...], lawyer, in the interests of Mr [...] (petitioner/insured) and of "[...] ." SRL (jointly – petitioners), through which they request the intervention of the CNPF in relation to the actions of SA "ACORD GRUP" SA (insurer).

I. Factual Circumstances
From the content of the petitions and the documents attached to them, including the declarations presented during the hearings on 19.01.2026, it is established that the legal relationship between Mr [...] and SA "ACORD GRUP" SA was established on the basis of the Mandatory Third-Party Liability Insurance Contract (RCA Insurance Contract) No. [...] , issued on 02.09.2025, for the insurance period
04.09.2025 – 03.09.2026, for the vehicle TOYOTA PRIUS, reg. No. [...].
In this regard, on 03.09.2025 (according to Lease Contract No. 11 dated
03.09.2025 and the extract from the Public Institution "Public Services Agency"), the transfer of the TOYOTA
PRIUS vehicle, reg. No. [...], to "[...] ." SRL was registered.
Subsequently, on 18.09.2025, the driver of the TOYOTA PRIUS vehicle, reg. No. [...], Mr [...], committed a traffic accident, resulting in damage to the Audi Q7 vehicle, reg. No. [...]. Consequently, based on RCA Insurance Contract No. [...], the insurer paid the insurance compensation to the injured person in the amount of [...] lei. Later, on 03.11.2025, the insurer sent a claim to "[...] ." SRL, through which it requested the return of the paid amount, under Article 8 paragraphs (3) and (4) and Article 30 paragraph (1) letter a) of Law No. 106/2022 on mandatory third-party liability insurance for damages caused by vehicles (Law No. 106/2022). In this context, the driver of the TOYOTA PRIUS vehicle, reg. No. [...], Mr [...], on 04.10.2025, committed a traffic accident, resulting in damage to the Mercedes 1222 vehicle, reg. No. [...].

Correspondingly, based on RCA Insurance Contract No. [...], the insurer paid the insurance compensation to the injured person in the amount of [...] lei. Later, on 19.11.2025, the insurer sent a claim to "[...] ." SRL, through which it requested the return of the paid amount, under Article 8 paragraphs (3) and (4) and Article 30 paragraph (1) letter a) of Law No. 106/2022. At the same time, on 22.10.2025, SA "ACORD GRUP" SA notified Mr [...] and "[...] ." SRL that, upon concluding the RCA Insurance Contract, "Mr [...] provided information that did not correspond to reality for the insurer to be able to assess the degree of risk [...]", requesting, according to the provisions of Article 12 paragraphs (6) and (7) of Law No. 106/2022, the modification of the insurance premium for RCA Insurance Contract No. [...] dated 02.09.2025, by reissuing it to a legal entity – "[...] ." SRL, with payment of the difference in insurance premium in the amount of [...] lei. At the same time, the insured and "[...] ." SRL were notified that, in case the request is not resolved, the RCA Insurance Contract is to be terminated within 20 days from the notification. Consequently, on 14.11.2025, Ms [...], lawyer, in the interests of Mr [...] and of "[...] ." SRL, submitted a response to the insurer to the notification dated
22.10.2025 and the claim dated 03.11.2025, through which she fully rejected
the recourse claim as unfounded in fact and in law, because the hypothesis of Article 30 paragraph (1) letter a) of Law No. 106/2022 is not applicable in the presence of a valid contract. Regarding the notification dated 22.10.2025, Ms [...], lawyer, in the interests of Mr [...] and of "[...] ." SRL, mentioned that she was not provided with information regarding the amount of the insurance premium, provided for in Article 12 paragraph (3) of Law No. 106/2022, requesting, during this time, "suspension of any termination proceedings and explicit confirmation that claim files are processed continuously, within the timeframes and procedures provided by law, applying – if applicable – the right to an additional premium provided for in Article 12 paragraph (7) of Law No. 106/2022." Subsidiarily, on 17.11.2025, the notification regarding the termination of the RCA Insurance Contract was sent to Mr [...], as a result of unilateral termination, referring to Order No. 17-1-2025 dated 13.11.2025, through which the termination, effective from 13.11.2025, of RCA Insurance Contract No. RCAI-011298923 dated 02.09.2025 was established, with the revocation of insurance policy No. RCAI-011298923 and with the attribution of the insurance premium for the unused period to other revenues of the insurance activity. Thus, on 14.11.2025, and additionally on 27.11.2025, petitions were submitted to the CNPF submitted by Ms [...], lawyer, in the interests of Mr [...] and of "[...] ." SRL (registered under No. 8299 and, respectively, No. 8567), through which they request the intervention of the CNPF in relation to the actions of SA "ACORD GRUP" SA, the interpretation of the meaning of Article 8 paragraphs (1) – (3) and Article 30 paragraph (1) letter a) of Law No. 106/2022 and the verification of the "alleged 'cancellations' of the RCA contract." Therefore, on 25.11.2025, SA "ACORD GRUP" SA presented objections to the response related to Claim No. 1321/2025 dated 03.11.2025, mentioning that Article 30 paragraph (1) letter a) of Law No. 106/2022 is fully applicable, and the recourse action is justified.

In this case, it is established that the insurer's response did not contain information regarding the calculation of the requested insurance premium nor any response to the request to suspend the termination of the RCA Insurance Contract.
II. Procedural Circumstances
Thus, on 14.11.2025, within the CNPF, the petition submitted by Ms [...], lawyer, in the interests of Mr [...] and of "[...] ." SRL was registered (under No. 8299). Subsequently, on 27.11.2025, the petitioner's request to supplement the petition was registered (under No. 8567), to which additional information was attached. Given that part of the legal relationship with the petitioner is SA "ACORD GRUP" SA, it was established that the rights of the latter could be affected by the administrative procedure initiated. By the Order of the President of the CNPF No. 1198 dated 02.12.2025 regarding the attraction, ex officio, of SA "ACORD GRUP" SA into the administrative procedure, initiated by the petition submitted by Ms [...], lawyer, in the interests of Mr [...] and of "[...] " SRL and the suspension of the administrative procedure, the insurer was attracted into the administrative procedure, and it was requested, by CNPF letter No. 04-5/4696 dated 03.12.2025, for the participants to present explanations regarding the aspects invoked in the petition. The administrative procedure was suspended for a term of 14 days, in this case, until
17.12.2025 inclusive.
Consequently, on 16.12.2025, SA "ACORD GRUP" SA presented the requested explanations and documents (registered at the CNPF under No. 10087). By the Order of the Vice President of the CNPF No. 1250 dated 24.12.2025 regarding the repeated suspension of the administrative procedure, initiated by the petition submitted by Ms [...], lawyer, in the interests of Mr [...] and of "[...] " SRL, the administrative procedure was suspended, and it was requested by letters No. 04/5-4973 and, respectively, No. 04/5- 4974 dated 24.12.2025, for the participants to present additional information and documents. The administrative procedure was suspended for a term of 12 days, in this case, until
05.01.2026 inclusive.
Subsequently, on 05.01.2026, SA "ACORD GRUP" SA presented the requested explanations (registered at the CNPF under No. 53). By the Order of the President of the CNPF No. 5 dated 09.01.2026 regarding the extension of the general term of the administrative procedure, initiated by the petition, submitted by Ms [...], lawyer, in the interests of Mr [...] and of "[...] " SRL, the general term of the administrative procedure was extended by 15 days, until 25.01.2026, a fact about which the participants were informed by CNPF letter No. 04-5/38 dated 09.01.2026. In the same vein, on 13.01.2026, "[...] ." SRL presented a copy of Lease Contract No. 11 dated 03.09.2025 for the TOYOTA PRIUS vehicle, reg. No. [...]. In this context, in order to respect the right to be heard regarding the facts and circumstances relevant to the decision to be adopted (Article 94 of the Administrative Code), by CNPF letter No. 04-5/90 dated 15.01.2026, SA "ACORD GRUP" SA, and by CNPF letter No. 04-5/89 dated 15.01.2026, the Office of the lawyer [...] were informed about the right to be heard

on 19.01.2026, at 9:30, and, respectively, 14:00, and to present the corresponding explanations regarding the petitions submitted by Ms [...], lawyer, in the interests of Mr [...] and of "[...] ." SRL. During the hearing procedures, on 19.01.2026, the participants in the administrative procedure supported the requests and explanations presented earlier, a fact which was recorded in the hearing minutes of the participant in the administrative procedure.
III. Legal Circumstances
According to Article 4 paragraphs (1) and (21) letter b) of Law No. 192/1998 on the National Financial Market Commission, "(1) The authority of the National Commission extends to the participants in the non-banking financial market, which include securities issuers, professional participants in the non-banking financial market and investors, as well as to the subjects of relationships concerning regulation, supervision and control in the field of consumer rights protection. (21) Subjects of relationships concerning regulation, supervision and control in the field of consumer rights protection are: b) professional participants in the insurance market and brokerage assistants, within the meaning of Law No. 92/2022 on insurance or reinsurance activity;". In accordance with Article 10 paragraph (1) of the Civil Code, "(1) Natural and legal persons participating in civil legal relationships must exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations in good faith, in accordance with the law, the contract, public order and good morals. Good faith is presumed until proven otherwise.". At the same time, according to Article 89 paragraphs (1) letters a), b) and d) of Law No. 92/2022 on insurance or reinsurance activity (Law No. 92/2022), "(1) For the protection of the consumer and for the quality of insurance or reinsurance services, the insurance or reinsurance company, as well as the insurance intermediary are obliged: a) to conduct their activities with professionalism, showing attention and devotion to contractors, insured persons, reinsured persons, insurance beneficiaries and injured third parties; b) to act honestly and respect the rights and interests of contractors, insured persons, reinsured persons, insurance beneficiaries and injured third parties, deriving from insurance and/or reinsurance contracts; d) to provide consumers with information regarding products, the general and special conditions of insurance and/or reinsurance contracts, the benefits resulting from these contracts, the tariffs and premiums they are to pay, under the conditions of Articles 87, 88 and 106;". According to Article 1 of Law No. 105/2003 on consumer protection (Law No. 105/2003), "professional diligence represents the level of specialized competence and consideration that a trader can reasonably exercise towards consumers, in conformity with fair commercial practice and/or with the general principle of good faith in the trader's field of activity". Consequently, Article 13 paragraphs (2) letters a) and b) of the same law establishes that "(2) A commercial practice is unfair if: a) it is contrary to the requirements of professional diligence; and b) it distorts or is likely to distort, in a significant manner, the economic behavior of the average consumer to whom it reaches or to whom it is addressed, or of the average member of a group, in the case where a commercial practice is addressed to a specific group of consumers.".

In accordance with Article 13 paragraphs (8) and (9) of Law No. 105/2003, "A commercial practice is considered to be a misleading omission if, in the context of the factual situation and taking into account all characteristics and circumstances, as well as the limits of space and time imposed by the means of communication used for transmitting information, this practice omits essential information necessary for the average consumer, taking into account the context, to make an informed transaction decision and, therefore, determines or is likely to determine the average consumer to make a transaction decision that they would not have made otherwise. […] (9) A commercial practice is also considered to be a misleading omission in the case when, taking into account the aspects provided for in paragraph (8), a trader hides essential information or provides it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner, or does not declare their true commercial intention, in the case where it does not already result from the context, and when, in any situation, the average consumer is determined or can be determined to make a transaction decision that they would not have made otherwise.". At the same time, according to paragraphs (11), (15) and (16) of the same article, "In the case of an invitation to purchase, for determining unfair commercial practices, the following information is considered essential, if it does not already result from the context: [...] c) the price including all taxes or the method of calculating it – in the case when the price, reasonably, cannot be calculated in advance, taking into account the nature of the product. Also, as appropriate, all additional costs for transport, delivery or postal taxes are considered essential; or, in the case where these costs, reasonably, cannot be calculated in advance – the clarification that there may be additional costs to be borne by the consumer; [...] (15) A commercial practice is considered to be aggressive if, in the context of the factual situation and taking into account all characteristics and circumstances, this practice limits or is likely to limit considerably the freedom of choice or behavior of the average consumer regarding the product through harassment, constraint, including through the use of physical force or through unjustified influence, and, therefore, the given practice determines or is likely to determine the consumer to make a transaction decision that they would not have made otherwise. (16) To determine whether a commercial practice resorts to harassment, constraint, including physical force or unjustified influence, the following is taken into account:
d) any onerous or disproportionate obstacle, not provided for in the contract, imposed by the trader, when the consumer wishes to exercise their contractual rights, including the right to terminate the contract, to change the product or to address another trader; e) any threat of measures in the case where these cannot be taken in a legal manner.". In accordance with Article 36 paragraph (2) letter g) of Law No. 105/2003, "(2) The control of compliance with the provisions of legislation on consumer protection regarding the safety and quality of products and services introduced or made available on the market and intended for consumers, including regarding correct practices in the field, is carried out: [...] g) on the subjects provided for in Article 4 paragraph (21) of Law No. 192/1998 on the National Financial Market Commission – by the National Financial Market Commission;".

Under Article 4 paragraph 1 of Law No. 106/2022, "Persons who use vehicles registered in the Republic of Moldova are obliged to conclude mandatory RCA insurance contracts for any cases of tort liability for damages caused by vehicle accidents.". According to Article 8 paragraphs (1) and (3) of Law No. 106/2022 "Mandatory RCA insurance is implemented directly by concluding an insurance contract between the owner and/or user of the vehicle and the RCA insurer [...] (3) If the insured natural person, with the exception of individual entrepreneurs or persons who, within the meaning of the Tax Code, provide professional services and carry out independent professional activities, transfers possession to a legal entity of the vehicle for which the mandatory RCA insurance contract was concluded, on the basis of a lease contract or another legal act drawn up in accordance with legislation, the risk of those admitted by the legal entity to use the vehicle is considered insured under the concluded contract. By derogation from the provisions of this paragraph, the insurer has the right to bring a recourse action under Article 30.". In accordance with Article 12 paragraphs (3), (6) and (7) of Law No. 106/2022 "The RCA insurer and the insurance intermediary are obliged to provide insured persons with information about the amount of the basic insurance premium, the correction coefficients and the bonus-malus coefficient, which will be applied to the insured. [...] (6) In the case where the information provided by the insured, according to Article 8, does not correspond to reality at the time of concluding the mandatory RCA insurance contract, the insurance premium may be recalculated and modified by the RCA insurer after prior notification of the insured. (7) In the case of violation of the information obligation provided for in Article 8 at the time of concluding the mandatory RCA insurance contract, during the validity period of the contract or in the case of aggravation of the risk, the RCA insurer may terminate the contract within 20 days from the prior notification of the insured if the latter does not agree to the modification of the contractual conditions under paragraph (6) of this article. In the case of the occurrence of the insured event during the notification period, the RCA insurer bears liability with the right to collect, as appropriate, an additional insurance premium.".
IV. Assessment by the CNPF
Analyzing the contractual clauses, the information in the documents presented by the insurer, petitioners, as well as the statements of the participants during the hearings, through the lens of the applicable regulatory framework in force at the time of concluding the contracts, namely the Civil Code, Law No. 92/2022, Law No. 106/2022 and Law No. 105/2003, the CNPF reveals the following:
4.1. Application of commercial practices contrary to professional diligence, which
are likely to distort consumer behavior
On 02.09.2025, Mr [...], through the Insurance Broker "VR INSURANCE GROUP" SRL, submitted to SA "ACORD GRUP" SA a request for concluding the Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract, according to which he indicated in, "Chapter 5. Characteristics", "K3 Legal status of the insured", the status of "Natural Person".

On the basis of this request, the Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract No. [...] was concluded, valid for the period 04.09.2025 – 03.09.2026, with the object being the TOYOTA PRIUS vehicle, reg. No. [...]. The contract was concluded in accordance with Article 8 paragraph (1) of Law No. 106/2022, with the natural person – owner of the vehicle, who acquired the status of insured and holder of the personal risk of third-party liability. According to point 8 of the Mandatory RCA Insurance Contract No. [...], the insurance premium was calculated in the amount of 1,324.70 lei, with the presentation of its calculation, according to Article 12 paragraph (3) of Law No. 106/2022. Subsequently, on 03.09.2025, the TOYOTA PRIUS vehicle, reg. No. [...], was transferred into possession to "[...] ." SRL, on the basis of Lease Contract No. 11 dated 03.09.2025. In accordance with Article 4 paragraph (1) and Article 8 paragraph (3) of Law No. 106/2022, in the situation in this case, the legal entity, which operated the vehicle, had the obligation to conclude its own RCA contract, an obligation which, according to the case materials, was not fulfilled. Contrary to the provisions of Article 89 paragraphs (1) letters a), b) and d) of Law No. 92/2022, which impose on the insurance company the obligation to act with professionalism, honesty, to respect the rights and interests of the insured and to provide them with information regarding insurance premiums, as well as in violation of the requirements of professional diligence, within the meaning of Article 1, Article 13 paragraph (2) letter a) of Law No. 105/2003, the insurer, on date 22.10.2025, sent a notification to Mr [...], and, in copy, mentioning also "[...] ." SRL, through which it invoked the violation of legal provisions by Mr [...], as a consequence, requesting the reissuance of the insurance contract in the name of "[...] ." SRL, with modification of the insurance premium. The insurer, through the notification dated 22.10.2025, claims that, upon concluding the RCA Insurance Contract "Mr [...] provided information that did not correspond to reality for the insurer to be able to assess the degree of risk, although in the request he confirmed that the information presented was truthful". From the case materials it results that:
1) on 02.09.2025, Mr [...] correctly declared his status as a natural
person, being the owner and user of the vehicle;
2) The Lease Contract with "[...] ." SRL was concluded subsequently, under No. 11 on
date 03.09.2025.
Therefore, within the limits of the factual circumstances invoked and in the absence of contrary evidence, a non-compliance of the information provided at the moment of concluding the RCA Insurance Contract cannot be retained, which is an essential condition for the application of Article 12 paragraph (6) of Law No. 106/2022. Also, the invocation of the subsequent aggravation of the risk, under Article 12 paragraph (7) of Law No. 106/2022, in the sense of the use of the vehicle by a legal entity in a taxi regime, is unfounded, because:
1) the use of the vehicle by the legal entity does not affect the personal risk of
third-party liability of the insured natural person;
2) Article 8 paragraph (3) of Law No. 106/2022 expressly provides that the risk of users of
the legal entity is considered insured, the insurer having exclusively the right of recourse, not the right to modify or terminate the contract of the natural person.

Consequently, the obligation to inform and any sanctioning measures could only affect the subject who operated the vehicle for commercial purposes, namely, the legal entity, but not the initial insured (natural person), and Article 12 paragraph (7) of Law No. 106/2022 cannot be interpreted extensively, to the detriment of the insured and in order to eliminate the consequences of the tenant's failure to fulfill the obligation to insure, by mod