From 1 November 2026, new and renewed mortgage-insurance policies in Russia must cover damage linked to drone attacks, terrorism, sabotage and falling aircraft or debris. Sber Insurance, the insurance arm of Sberbank, says it has added the risks without immediately raising premiums.
That promise gives the bank a useful selling point. It does not, however, settle the question that matters most to a homeowner after an explosion: whether the damage will actually be recognised as covered. If the incident is classified as a consequence of military operations rather than a qualifying drone attack or terrorist act, the insurer may refuse payment.
The change therefore does more than widen the wording of a mortgage policy. It moves the financial uncertainty created by attacks into a compulsory product that borrowers must maintain if they want to avoid a sharp increase in the cost of their loan.
The price is unchanged — for now
The new requirement forms part of a wider package of financial, social and legal changes reported as taking effect in Russia in November. Other measures include tighter deadlines for some payments for public services and expanded powers for bailiffs pursuing debts. For mortgage holders, the insurance provision is the measure most directly connected to the country’s changing security risks.
Reports dated 1 November 2026 described the changes, including the new mortgage rules, in a Telegram post and a summary of the November changes.
Sber Insurance has said that the additional risks are being included in the existing price of its policies. That gives Sberbank an immediate commercial advantage. Borrowers taking out a mortgage generally need a policy accepted by the bank, and a product offering broader protection at the same initial price may appear more attractive than competing cover.
But the price at the point of sale is not the same as the cost over the life of a mortgage. Insurers calculate premiums by estimating the probability of loss and the size of potential payouts. Adding several high-severity risks does not make those costs disappear because the tariff remains unchanged on the first day. They can return through higher reserves, revised conditions or increased premiums at annual renewal.
Estimates cited in discussion of the change suggest that mortgage insurance could eventually become 10% to 20% more expensive, with larger increases possible in some border regions and Crimea. That is a possible market response, not a fixed charge for every borrower. The distinction is important: Sber Insurance’s assurance concerns the immediate price, while future premiums will depend on claims and insurers’ assessment of the risk.
For households already carrying costly mortgages, even a modest annual increase could matter. Refusing the required cover is not an easy alternative. Under the bank’s mortgage terms, the interest rate may rise by as much as two percentage points if a borrower does not maintain the policy. A more expensive insurance premium may therefore still be cheaper than accepting a substantial increase in the mortgage rate.
Covering a risk is not the same as paying a claim
The central dispute will begin after a property is damaged. Listing drone attacks, terrorism and sabotage as covered events does not by itself establish what caused a particular loss. An investigation may have to determine whether the damage resulted from a qualifying attack, a broader military operation or another event excluded by the contract.
If the damage is classified as a consequence of military operations rather than a covered drone strike or terrorist incident, the insurer may reject the claim. The borrower would then have to challenge the decision, potentially through the courts, while continuing to repay the mortgage and deal with a damaged home.
That creates a gap between formal cover and effective protection. The new wording may give some homeowners a route to compensation, but it does not remove disputes over evidence, official classifications or the boundary between a specific attack and the wider consequences of the conflict. A policy can recognise a risk without guaranteeing that the insurer will accept a particular account of events.
The practical burden could be considerable. A borrower facing a rejected claim may have to fund repairs, find temporary accommodation or continue paying for a property that is partly unusable. The financial exposure lasts until the insurer accepts the claim or a court orders compensation.
A national rule for sharply uneven risks
The requirement applies across Russia, even though the risk of drone attacks is not evenly distributed. Homes in border areas face a different level of exposure from properties in remote parts of Siberia or the Far East. A nationwide rule places all mortgage customers inside the same broad insurance framework, although insurers may still reflect regional differences in their pricing.
That structure can spread the cost of a concentrated risk across a much larger pool. Borrowers in relatively safe areas may contribute towards cover for properties in places where attacks are more likely. Whether that becomes a significant cross-subsidy will depend on how insurers set regional tariffs, but the mechanism is clear: the risk is no longer confined to the properties most exposed to it.
The new requirements may also favour the largest insurers. A single incident can damage many buildings at once, creating a cluster of claims that requires substantial reserves and rapid payments. Smaller and regional companies may struggle to absorb such losses or to meet the bank’s conditions for participation in its mortgage programmes.
If those providers withdraw voluntarily or fail to secure accreditation, borrowers will have fewer approved insurers from which to choose. That would reduce their ability to compare premiums and contract terms. It could also strengthen Sber Insurance’s position within Sberbank’s lending chain, since the group’s own insurer would be offering wider cover through a company already integrated into the mortgage process.
The cost may reach the construction sector
The effects will not necessarily stop with existing homeowners. Banks and insurers also assess the risks attached to land, construction sites and future buildings when they provide project finance. If lenders demand larger reserves, additional security measures or wider insurance cover, developers will face higher costs before a new flat reaches the market.
Some of those expenses may be passed on through a higher price per square metre. In areas considered particularly vulnerable, investors may demand greater returns to compensate for uncertainty, while lenders may impose stricter conditions. Projects could be delayed or become financially unattractive if insurance, security and borrowing costs rise together.
A complete halt to residential and commercial construction is not an established consequence of the rule. It is a possible outcome in the most exposed areas if repeated damage produces higher claims and tighter lending conditions. The more immediate effect is likely to be a new layer of risk assessment around development finance, with costs calculated before construction begins.
For Sberbank, the immediate calculation is straightforward: broader cover at the same advertised starting price can attract mortgage customers and reinforce the role of its insurance subsidiary. For borrowers, the bargain is less certain. They receive a policy that names risks previously treated differently, but may later face higher renewal premiums, fewer alternatives and a legal fight over the cause of damage.
The decisive test will come with the first substantial claims. Until insurers and courts establish how the new categories are interpreted, the policy shifts war-related uncertainty into a contract that homeowners must buy to keep their mortgages on ordinary terms.
