Decision No. 53/1 of 4 November 2025 Approving Recommendations for Insurance Companies on the Compliant Application of Civil Law Provisions in Insurance

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR FINANCIAL MARKETS 77 Stefan cel Mare si Sfant Blvd., Chisinau, MD 2012, tel: (373 22) 859 401, www.cnpf.md, e-mail: office@cnpf.md DECISION 4 November 2025 No. 53/1 On the approval of recommendations addressed to insurance companies regarding the compliant application of certain provisions of civil legislation in the field of insurance

Pursuant to Article 1 paragraph (1), Article 8 letter t), Article 18 paragraph (3), and Article 20 paragraphs (1) and (6) of Law No. 192/1998 on the National Commission for Financial Markets, Article 89 paragraph (3) letter b) of Law No. 92/2022 on insurance or reinsurance activity, and point 16 of the Regulation on the organization and functioning of the CNPF (CNPF Decision No. 57/11/2022),

The National Commission for Financial Markets DECIDES:

1. The recommendations addressed to insurance companies regarding the compliant application of certain provisions of civil legislation in the field of insurance (attached) are approved as an opinion.
2. This Decision shall be published on the official website of the CNPF (www.cnpf.md).

Dumitru BUDIANSCHI, PRESIDENT

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR FINANCIAL MARKETS 1 TO INSURANCE COMPANIES (according to the list) Re: recommendations on the compliant application of certain provisions of civil legislation in the field of insurance

The National Commission for Financial Markets (CNPF), in accordance with the provisions of Article 89 paragraph (3) letter b) of the Law on insurance or reinsurance activity No. 92/2022 (Law No. 92/2022), according to which "(3) The National Commission for Financial Markets is the public authority that coordinates at the national level the control of compliance with legislation on consumer protection in the field of insurance, having the following main duties: b) implements and promotes [...] recommendations in the field of consumer protection on the insurance market;", following the analysis of received petitions, has identified discrepancies in the application of the provisions of Chapter XXV "Insurance" of the Civil Code and formulates the following recommendations, on the basis of which it will exercise its discretionary right within the administrative procedures it conducts:

1. Discriminatory clauses on grounds of sex, pregnancy, and maternity Article 1828 of the Civil Code provides: "(1) The use of gender (including the state of pregnancy or maternity) as a factor in the calculation of premiums and benefits must not lead to differences in premiums charged and benefits paid, except for the exceptions provided for by normative acts in the field of insurance. (2) Race, color, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion or beliefs, opinion or political affiliation cannot constitute factors leading to differences in premiums charged from natural persons and benefits owed to them. (3) If the insurance contract contains conditions that violate the requirements provided for in para.(1) or (2), these conditions shall be replaced by law with non-discriminatory conditions. Any clause contrary to this is null and void. (4) If the insurance contract contains conditions that violate the requirements provided for in para.(1) or (2), the policyholder has the right to terminate the insurance. The notice of termination must be communicated to the insurer within 2 months at most after the policyholder became aware of the violation."

In the same vein, Article 121 paragraphs (3) and (4) of Law No. 5/2006 on ensuring equal opportunities between women and men (Law No. 5/2006) establishes that "(3) Discrimination of the insured person on the basis of sex by establishing differentiated premiums, tariffs, and benefits within insurance (reinsurance) activity and related financial services is prohibited. (4) Maintaining in contracts any clauses that determine differences for the insured person in terms of premiums and benefits as a result of costs related to pregnancy and maternity is prohibited. This provision does not affect more favorable conditions established for women regarding pregnancy and maternity."

On this subject, insurance contracts and insurance conditions related to medical insurance for travel abroad (Class 2) have been identified, which contain clauses of the type: "The Insurer does not provide compensation in the following situations: any request, examination, care, or treatment related to pregnancy, childbirth, spontaneous/therapeutic abortion, and their consequences, except for termination of pregnancy following an accident."

Through such general and absolute exclusions, no distinction is made between normal medical situations and complications arising during pregnancy, and therefore, any benefit related to a biological state specific to women is discriminatorily eliminated. Such a formulation contradicts the principle of equal treatment and may constitute a form of direct discrimination based on sex, prohibited by the provisions of Article 1828 of the Civil Code and Article 121 of Law No. 5/2006.

The quoted contractual clause provides for a complete exclusion of any coverage for medical services related to pregnancy, childbirth, or their complications within travel insurance. This total exclusion places pregnant women in a significantly disadvantaged position compared to other insured persons: while other insured persons benefit, for example, from the reimbursement of expenses for medical emergencies occurring during travel, pregnant women are refused any insurance compensation (indemnity) for medical events related to pregnancy (including unforeseeable complications). Such differentiation represents less favorable treatment on the grounds of pregnancy, i.e., a possible direct discrimination based on sex.

By virtue of Article 1828 paragraph (3) of the Civil Code, such clauses are null and void by law, as they establish differentiated treatment based on sex and a natural physiological state.

Furthermore, the quoted clauses contradict the provisions of Article 121 paragraphs (3) – (4) of Law No. 5/2006, which explicitly prohibit the establishment of differentiated premiums, tariffs, and benefits within insurance (reinsurance) activity.

Recommendation: revision of insurance conditions to ensure their compliance with the provisions of Article 1828 of the Civil Code and Article 121 paragraphs (3) – (4) of Law No. 5/2006, by:

1. reevaluating insurance products and eliminating clauses that, through general wording, exclude en bloc any situation related to pregnancy or childbirth;
2. ensuring mandatory minimum coverage for medical emergencies occurring during pregnancy, avoiding the total exclusion of these risks;
3. clearly delimiting uninsurable risks, such as full-term childbirth (which does not constitute an unforeseeable event), from situations that must be covered, such as unexpected emergency cases arising during pregnancy.

2. Clause regarding precautionary measures According to Article 1842 of the Civil Code: "(1) A clause of an insurance contract establishes precautionary measures when that clause, formulated as an obligation or as a condition for payment of indemnity or compensation by the insurer, requires from the policyholder or the insured, before the occurrence of the insured event, to perform or refrain from certain actions that do not relate to the payment of the insurance premium. (2) If the insurance contract provides that, in the event of non-compliance with the precautionary measure, the insurer has the right to terminate the insurance, then that clause can only be invoked if the policyholder or, as the case may be, the insured did not fulfill it with the intention of causing damage or due to gross negligence, while knowing that there is a probability that the damage will occur. The insurer is deprived of the right to termination if it does not exercise it within one month from the moment it learned or there are indications that the precautionary measure was not fulfilled. (3) If the insurance contract provides that, in the event of non-compliance with the precautionary measure, the insurer is released totally or partially from liability, then that clause can only be invoked to the extent that the damage was caused by non-compliance with it by the policyholder or, as the case may be, the insured with the intention of causing damage or due to gross negligence, if they knew or should have known that there was a probability that the damage would occur. (4) The policyholder or, as the case may be, the insured has the right to indemnity or insurance compensation even when the damage is caused by non-compliance with the precautionary measure due to negligence. A clause that excludes liability even in the case of negligence of the policyholder or, as the case may be, the insured in fulfilling the precautionary measure can be invoked if it is clearly expressed."

In this context, clauses of the type: "Based on these Insurance Conditions, compensation is not provided for damages caused to the vehicle, its components, or parts of the vehicle because the Insured or the user and/or passengers in the vehicle did not take actions dependent on them to avoid the occurrence of the insured risk or to limit the damages caused by its occurrence, namely: by opening vehicle doors while moving or starting from a standstill with doors open; not engaging the handbrake when stopping or parking the vehicle." have been identified in the Vehicle Insurance Conditions, other than railway (Class 3).

By virtue of Article 1842 of the Civil Code, the clause regarding precautionary measures can be opposed to the insured only under the conditions expressly provided by law, namely, when the non-compliance was committed with the intention of causing damage or due to gross negligence.

The above clause does not expressly exclude liability in the case of simple negligence, thus being susceptible to interpretation contrary to the provisions of Article 1842 paragraph (4) of the Civil Code, according to which the insurer cannot refuse payment of compensation if the insured's act was committed due to simple negligence.

Recommendation: revision of insurance conditions to align clauses regarding precautionary measures with the provisions of Article 1842 of the Civil Code, by:

1. explicit and clear formulation of the cases in which the insurer's liability is excluded;
2. elimination of any possibility of interpretation whereby non-compliance with a precautionary measure due to simple negligence would lead to the refusal of compensation payment.

3. Effects of termination Article 1850 of the Civil Code provides: "(1) The insurer declares termination by declaration to the policyholder even if another person has the status of insured or beneficiary of the insurance. (2) In the event of termination of the insurance, the insurer has the right only to the premium attributable to the insurance period that actually elapsed before the date of termination. However, in the event of termination of the insurance, the insurer retains the premium for the entire insurance period if an insured event has occurred, and the insurer owes insurance compensation or, as the case may be, insurance indemnity. (3) In the event that termination occurred due to the unjustified non-execution of the obligation by one of the parties, the other party's right to compensation for damage remains unaffected. In particular, in this case, the insurer may request reimbursement or, as the case may be, retain management expenses even if the insurance period has not elapsed or was suspended, and, under the conditions provided for in Article 942, may request interest on late payment or penalty on the sums to which it is entitled after termination. (4) Termination of the insurance does not extinguish the insurer's obligation related to an insured event produced within the insurance period that actually elapsed before the date of termination."

From the correlation of the provisions of Article 1850 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Civil Code, it results that the insurer's right to retain management expenses is conditioned by the existence of a culpable non-execution of obligations by one of the parties.

Furthermore, situations have been observed where, following the termination of voluntary insurance contracts by agreement of the parties, insurers retained both the portion of the premium related to the elapsed period and management expenses, although there was no culpable non-execution of the insured's obligations.

In situations where termination occurs by agreement of the parties, without the existence of any fault on the part of the insured, the retention of management expenses is not legally justified, as the basis provided for in Article 1850 paragraph (3) of the Civil Code is not applicable to the case.

Recommendation: revision of internal practices applied in cases of termination of insurance contracts, for the purpose of:

1. eliminating the unjustified application of deductions related to management expenses in cases of termination by agreement of the parties;
2. ensuring the compliance of internal procedures with the provisions of Article 1850 paragraphs (2) – (3) of the Civil Code.

4. Deadlines for notification of the insured event Article 1851 of the Civil Code provides: "(1) The occurrence of the insured event must be notified immediately to the insurer by the policyholder, the insured, or, as the case may be, the beneficiary, provided that the person obliged to make the notification knew or should have known the existence of insurance coverage and the occurrence of the insured event. The obligation is considered fulfilled if a third party informs the insurer. (2) If the insurance contract requires that the information be provided within a certain period, this period must be reasonable. The information is considered to be provided within the period if it was sent within the period. (3) The insurer cannot invoke the clause by which it is released totally or partially from its obligation if the obligation to inform was not fulfilled in the proper manner, except to the extent that, through non-execution, the insurer's interests are seriously affected."

In accordance with the cited legal provisions, the insurer may invoke a clause of exoneration, total or partial, from payment of compensation only to the extent that the non-fulfillment of the notification obligation seriously affected its legitimate interests, such as:

1. impossibility of verifying the circumstances of the occurrence of the risk;
2. impossibility of assessing the damage;
3. impossibility of preventing the extension of damages.

In this regard, insurance conditions related to medical insurance products for travel abroad (Class 2) have been identified, which provide for formulations of the type: "The Insurer does not assume insurance obligations and does not pay insurance compensation in the event that the Insured/beneficiary of the insurance did not inform the Assistance Company immediately (but no later than 24 hours), except only up to the limit of *** EUR."

Such formulations contradict the provisions of Article 1851 paragraph (3) of the Civil Code, as they establish an automatic loss or arbitrary limitation of the right to compensation, without evaluating the real effect of the delay on the insurer's interests.

Clauses by which the payment of compensation is conditioned on notification within a fixed period (e.g., 24 hours) or by which capped compensations are established ("up to the limit of *** EUR") are non-compliant with civil legislation, as they introduce an automatic sanction, not provided for by law, and ignore the principle of proportionality, fixed by Article 1851 paragraph (3) of the Civil Code.

Recommendations:

1. revision of all insurance conditions to eliminate clauses that provide for the limitation of compensation in the absence of notification within a fixed period, which should be replaced with formulations compliant with Article 1851 of the Civil Code;
2. in cases of late notification, the insurer may invoke the impact on its own interests only if it demonstrates, by objective and documented means, that the delay seriously influenced the possibility of verifying the insured event, intervening, or reducing the damage.

5. Legal deadline for payment of compensation In accordance with Article 1854 of the Civil Code: "(1) The insurer's benefit is due from the moment of completion of the investigation and establishment of the insured event and the extent of the insurer's obligation. In the event that the claim has been accepted, the insurer, without unjustified delay, will pay or, as the case may be, perform another benefit provided for by the contract. (2) If the investigation lasts more than one month, the insured or, as the case may be, the beneficiary of the insurance is entitled to request an advance corresponding and proportional to the probable payment obligation, provided that the insurer's obligation to pay the indemnity or compensation and its size do not raise doubts. The advance will be paid without unjustified delay. (3) Payment of the insurance indemnity or compensation, on the basis of para.(1) or (2), will be made no later than one week after the acceptance and quantification of the claim or, as the case may be, of the part thereof. (4) Agreements by which the insurer releases itself from the obligation to pay possible interest on late payment or, as the case may be, penalties are null and void. (5) The insurer may offset due insurance premiums and other sums owed to it based on the insurance contract with sums claimed from the insurer under the same insurance contract, even if the claimant is a third party. This rule does not apply in the case of mandatory civil liability insurance."

In accordance with the provisions of Article 1854 paragraph (3) of the Civil Code, the payment of the insurance indemnity or compensation must be made no later than one week from the date of acceptance and quantification of the claim or, as the case may be, of the part thereof. This term has an imperative and maximal character, and cannot be extended by agreement of the parties or by the insurer's internal acts.

Following the analysis of insurance conditions related to voluntary insurance contracts, it was found that, contrary to legal provisions, some clauses establish payment deadlines for insurance compensation or indemnity that are longer than those established in Article 1854 paragraph (3) of the Civil Code. E.g.: "Insurance compensation is paid within 7 working days / 10 days from the date of completion of investigations."

Recommendation: revision and adjustment of the general and special conditions of insurance products, for the purpose of eliminating provisions contrary to legal provisions and introducing a formulation compliant with Article 1854 of the Civil Code.

6. Proportional indemnity clause According to Article 1870 of the Civil Code: "(1) The insurer is obliged to compensate the entire insured damage within the limit of the insured sum even if the insured sum is smaller than the value of the insured asset at the moment of the occurrence of the insured event. (2) However, the parties may agree that the compensation owed by the insurer shall be reduced proportionally to the ratio between the insured sum and the actual value of the asset at the moment the damage occurred (proportional indemnity clause). In this case, the damage mitigation expenses provided for in Article 1863 shall be reimbursed in the same proportion. (3) The proportional indemnity clause can only be invoked if the insurer has additionally mentioned in the text of the insurance policy its existence."

By virtue of Articles 1868 and 1870 paragraph (1) of the Civil Code, the general rule is established, according to which the insurer is obliged to compensate the entire insured damage, within the limit of the insured sum, even if this sum is lower than the real value of the insured asset at the moment the insured risk occurred.

This norm has an imperative character and constitutes a guarantee in favor of the insured, consecrating the insured's right to obtain the entire insured damage (up to the limit of the insured sum) and, at the same time, establishing a correlative obligation of the insurer.

Therefore, the application of Article 1870 paragraph (1) of the Civil Code is not conditioned by the existence of a formal or declared underinsurance, but applies whenever the insured event occurs, and the insured sum is equal to or less than the value of the asset, regardless of the intention or contractual strategy of the parties.

The proportional indemnity clause, provided for in Article 1870 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Civil Code, can only be applied if the following conditions are cumulatively met:

1. the parties have expressly agreed on the inclusion of such a clause;
2. the method of calculating proportionality and the elements of the formula are explicitly determined;
3. the existence of the clause is additionally and distinctly mentioned in the text of the insurance policy.

In the course of the analysis carried out on the general and special conditions, related to certain voluntary insurance products, it was observed that certain clauses provide: "In the event of partial damages, if the Insured or Beneficiary has received compensation (one or more) exceeding 25% of the initial insured sum and has not replenished this sum, then the amount of subsequent compensations will be calculated corresponding to the proportion between the remaining insured sum and the initial insured sum."

Such a formulation expressly establishes a limitation of the insurer's obligation for future compensations and introduces a proportional calculation rule based on the remaining insured sum.

Establishing a conventional threshold (e.g., 25% of the initial insured sum) for the activation of the proportional indemnity clause is not, by itself, contrary to the Civil Code, however, to produce legal effects, it is necessary that this clause be mentioned, expressly and visibly, in the insurance policy.

In practice, it has been found that these clauses are often included only in the general conditions, without distinct mention in the policy, which contradicts the provisions of Article 1870 paragraph (3) of the Civil Code.

Recommendations:

1. revision of the contractual documentation related to voluntary insurance products;
2. ensuring the express, distinct, and legible mention in the insurance policy of any proportional indemnity clause, if it is practiced;
3. exclusion of the application of proportional clauses that do not respect the requirements of Article 1870 paragraph (3) of the Civil Code.

By this, the CNPF records that its objective is the uniform and compliant application of the provisions of civil legislation in the field of insurance, for the purpose of protecting the interests of the insured and consolidating trust in the insurance market.

In this regard, the CNPF reiterates the importance of respecting legal provisions in the matter of insurance and encourages insurers to ensure transparency, fairness, and correct treatment of consumers of insurance services.

Respectfully, Dumitru BUDIANSCHI, PRESIDENT