Azerbaijan.US
The issue of introducing an insurance mechanism for paid parking services was raised this week in Azerbaijan’s parliament, highlighting a legal gap that leaves drivers unprotected even after paying for parking.
Lawmakers noted that while motorists are required to pay for parking, no clear guarantees exist if a vehicle is damaged while parked. As a result, drivers often bear the full risk themselves, despite using an officially designated paid parking space.
The proposal has reignited debate over how parking-related risks should be regulated under Azerbaijani law – and how this compares with international practice.
Legal ambiguity remains
Member of Parliament Vasif Gafarov, who voiced the proposal, told Oxu.Az that current legislation does not clearly define liability in paid parking situations.
According to him, it remains unclear under what circumstances responsibility lies with the parking operator, the vehicle owner, or an insurance company.
“In practice, parking operators argue that they merely provide space, compulsory motor insurance does not cover such cases, and the car owner is left without protection,” Gafarov said. “This legal ambiguity must be resolved through clear regulation.”
What insurers say
The Azerbaijan Insurers Association confirmed that the local insurance market currently does not offer a standalone product covering the civil liability of parking operators for damage to vehicles during parking.
At the same time, insurers point out that comprehensive (CASCO) insurance can cover damage occurring while a vehicle is parked, including:
collisions,
falling objects such as trees or lighting poles,
vandalism,
theft.
However, CASCO insurance is voluntary and depends on the individual decision of the car owner.
The Association noted that a dedicated insurance product for parking operators could emerge if sufficient consumer demand develops, as insurance offerings are largely shaped by market demand.
How other countries regulate parking risks
Internationally, paid parking insurance is regulated through different models, with no single universal approach. However, many countries provide clearer rules on operator responsibility.
European model: operator liability
In countries such as Germany, France, Italy and Spain, parking is treated as a service rather than mere space rental. Parking operators are typically required to carry public liability insurance, covering damage caused by infrastructure failures or operator negligence, particularly in enclosed parking facilities.
UK model: limited liability with warnings
In the United Kingdom, operators are liable only if damage results from proven negligence. Drivers are usually warned in advance about risks, with CASCO insurance serving as the primary form of protection.
US model: contract-based approach
In the United States, liability is governed by contract law. Responsibility is clearly outlined on parking tickets or within mobile apps. Operators generally cover infrastructure-related damage, while theft and other risks are often left to comprehensive insurance policies.
Scandinavian model: consumer-first protection
In Sweden, Norway and Finland, a strong consumer-protection approach applies. If an incident occurs, responsibility is first assessed on the operator’s side, reflecting the principle that paid parking implies a duty of care.
What’s next?
Experts agree that the absence of a clear insurance framework for paid parking in Azerbaijan creates a legal vacuum. Until responsibility and insurance obligations are explicitly defined, drivers will continue to face risks – even when using paid, officially regulated parking services.
