Insurance & Reinsurance 2023

Last Updated December 16, 2022

Mexico

Law and Practice

Authors



Guerra, Hidalgo y Mendoza, SC was founded in 2020 as a high-tier boutique Mexican firm specialising in bankruptcy and restructurings (both in and out of court) civil, commercial, insurance and bond litigation, arbitration, and other dispute resolution methods. Its partners have more than two decades acting as counsel to individuals, companies, national and international institutions, banking, and government in high-profile disputes. The firm has successfully achieved results in a wide range of complex work, including federal and state, trial and appellate, and through arbitration and other forms of alternative dispute resolution. Its dispute resolution lawyers employ the most appropriate tools and strategies for each stage of the process and each unique situation. Whether through the timely use of innovative alternative dispute resolution techniques or skilful and persuasive work at court, clients can count on the firm’s lawyers to maximise their prospects for a successful outcome.

Sources of Insurance and Bonding Law in Mexico

The main sources in Mexico are legislation and judicial criteria. Insurance law legislation includes:

  • the Law of Insurance and Bonding Institutions;
  • the Sole Insurance and Bonding Circular;
  • the Insurance Contract Law;
  • the general insurance provisions issued by the National Commission for the Protection and Defense of Users of Financial Services;
  • the Code of Commerce; and
  • the Federal Civil Code.

International legislation is used when there is an international contract (reinsurance or insurance), where, depending on the type of insurance, the provisions that will apply may be Mexican or international laws.

In 1996, Mexico ratified the Inter-American Convention on the Law Applicable to International Contracts, which establishes a framework to determine the law applicable to international contracts, such as reinsurance or insurance contracts. For the regulation of international insurance or reinsurance, international conventions or treaties are considered depending on the type of insurance and the insured objects; for example, in air transport insurance, international treaties specialised in aeronautical law are used so that the insurance complies with all the requirements in international matters.

Additionally, there is the jurisprudence and judicial criteria issued by the Supreme Court of Justice and the highest courts in the country. This source of law is very important in the Mexican legal system, since it sets precedents for the resolution of judicial disputes in insurance matters, and is also a guideline for insurers as to the conduct they must adopt in their operations.

Regulation of Insurance and Surety Bonds

The National Insurance and Bonding Commission is the governing body that regulates insurance and bonding companies, from their incorporation to their operation, and at all times ensures that they comply with their obligations under the relevant regulatory framework, including the correct constitution of their corporate governance, solvency capital, the contracts they issue, and the constitution of their technical reserves, among others.

On the other hand, the National Commission for the Protection and Defense of Users of Financial Services is the governing body that oversees that insurance and surety companies provide adequate service to consumers of their products. Likewise, such authority may sanction them where they fail to comply with any administrative provision related to consumers. Among other provisions, it is in charge of ensuring compliance with the Law for the Protection and Defense of Users of Financial Services.

Corporate Insurance and Reinsurance

The authorisation to subscribe insurance and reinsurance for (small- or medium-sized) companies corresponds to those companies that have the respective authorisation from the National Insurance and Bonding Commission to operate as an insurer and that also have permission to distribute the product required by the company, ie, in the life, accident and sickness or damage line of business. There are no specific or differentiated requirements for insurers to operate consumer insurance or business insurance.

In the case of business insurance, adhesion contracts are also used; however, this is not an obstacle for them to be negotiated by the contracting company, in terms of its specific needs. For an insurer to issue an insurance policy to a company, it must verify, at the time of subscription, what is contained in its policies and subscription manuals. Other issues that are contemplated include:

  • the objects to be insured;
  • risk profile;
  • seniority in the market in question; and
  • sector of economic activity.

The restriction for insurers at the time of taking out insurance is that they do not exceed the capacity for which they can assume risks; for this purpose, Articles 256 and 257 of the Law of Insurance and Bonding Institutions provide that they must diversify and disperse the risks through coinsurance or reinsurance with foreign companies, specifying that there is no different or specific regulation when it comes to business or consumer insurance.

Details of all the requirements that insurers must comply with to operate consumer and business insurance can be found in the Sole Insurance and Bonding Circular.

The Premium Regime

Under Mexican law, the nature of the premium regime is taxable, since if the contracting party or insured party does not pay the premium within the term established for such purpose, the insurance ceases to be effective. The general rule is that the premium is due in advance; that is, at the beginning of each period of the term of the insurance contract. In some cases, depending on the type of insurance, the premium may be divided and paid in specific periods, but it must be paid in periods of equal duration.

Operation of Foreign Insurance or Reinsurance Companies

The operation of insurance in Mexico is authorised for institutions incorporated under Mexican law. If a foreign company wants to operate in Mexico, it must incorporate an affiliate entity in Mexico to provide insurance services in Mexico.

Regarding the operation of reinsurance, in order to provide this service from Mexico and to hold itself out as a Mexican reinsurer, it is necessary for the company to open an affiliate entity in the country and obtain authorisation from the National Insurance and Bonding Commission. However, if the insurance was granted by a Mexican insurer, the insurer, in order to diversify and disperse the risks and responsibilities it assumed when carrying out this operation, is allowed to contract reinsurance or coinsurance with a foreign company. For an insurer to enter into reinsurance with a foreign company, the latter must be registered in the General Registry of Foreign Reinsurers, which is obtained through the authorisation of the National Insurance and Bonding Commission, which, prior to granting the registration, will review, among other aspects, the solvency and stability requirements to carry out reinsurance operations.

In Mexican legislation, there is no express provision allowing fronting and, in some cases, there are restrictions in that insurance cannot be contracted with foreign companies when the persons or companies to be insured reside in Mexican territory or when the object to be insured is located in Mexican territory or is the property of a person domiciled in Mexico and, in general, in cases where the risks may occur in Mexican territory.

However, as stated in 3.1 Overseas-Based Insurers or Reinsurers, Mexican insurance companies may diversify their risks through reinsurance or coinsurance with foreign companies, and it is in these operations that fronting occurs, since through these operations the insurers that assume the risk transfer it to other insurers or reinsurers.

In this respect, there is no percentage limit for reinsurance or coinsurance, nor is there a minimum retention requirement for the transferor company. On the contrary, Mexican law establishes that an insurer cannot retain all the risk if it exceeds its capacity to mitigate the risk, and what it provides is that the surplus must be diversified in reinsurance. In practice, it is common for the entire risk to be reinsured, so that sometimes it is actually the reinsurer who assumes the entire risk; however, it is not the reinsurer but the transferor insurer who will be liable to the insured.

Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) of insurance companies are very common in Mexico, especially when international insurers absorb local insurers, since the absorption facilitates the insurers that arrive, as they already have the authorisation of the Mexican regulatory authority and the permits to operate products. In recent years, M&A have been recurring in Mexico, which is accepted, as there is regulation on M&A in the Law of Insurance and Bonding Institutions and in the Sole Insurance and Bonding Circular.

The absorbing insurer takes over the portfolio of the absorbed insurance institution and assumes all the risks it had insured, for which it must have a contingency plan in place for all the risk it assumes.

The distribution of insurance and reinsurance products is regulated by the Law of Insurance and Bonding Institutions and by the Sole Insurance and Bonding Circular, and is carried out as follows:

  • Direct sales – these sales are made by insurance companies.
  • Sales through insurance agents – insurance agents offer the general public a wide range of insurance with various institutions and products. In order to be able to sell insurance, the individual or legal entity must be authorised by the National Insurance and Bonding Commission and comply with various requirements set forth in the Insurance and Bonding Agents Regulations, including having completed high school or equivalent, having the technical capacity to perform brokerage activities, not being a public servant, not having been convicted of a property crime, and not having been declared bankrupt. Likewise, it is important to point out that agents are also required to contract and maintain civil liability insurance for errors and omissions.
  • Sales through digital media – the sale of insurance and reinsurance products through digital media is also regulated by the Sole Insurance and Bonding Circular, particularly with regard to the terms and conditions under which electronic insurance contracts must be made, since Mexican legislation is very specific in that insurers must provide all the information and documentation clearly to the contracting parties or insured parties.
  • Bancasurrance – in Mexico, there is the distribution of products through financial institutions, but this model is known as contracting through a legal entity. In order to start with the distribution of insurance, financial institutions must sign a contract with the insurers which must be authorised and registered before the National Insurance and Bonding Commission. Also, in some cases, before the financial institutions or legal entities distribute the insurance products, they should receive training from the insurance company, or obtain evaluation or certification by the National Insurance and Bonding Commission.

Disclosure of Information about the Risk

In Mexico, as in most jurisdictions, insurance contracts are documents previously drafted by the insurers and in which there is no margin for negotiation by the insured, being classified for such reason as "adhesion contracts". This type of contract has a distinctive characteristic in that the parties do not agree on equal terms nor do they have the possibility of compromising or negotiating between equals. Thus, the distinguishing feature of the adhesion contract lies in the fact that the clauses are not drafted by both parties, but are predisposed (and sometimes imposed) by one of them to the other, who can only accept or reject them.

Having established the above, it is the insured who is obliged to declare in writing to the insurer, according to the corresponding questionnaire, all the facts important for the appreciation of the risk that may influence the agreed conditions, as they know or should know them at the time of the execution of the contract. There is no obligation on the part of the insurer to actively investigate the important facts on the part of the insured and which may influence the agreed conditions.

The frequent and growing use of insurance contracts has generated the need to regulate their execution; legislation which, in view of the advantageous position of insurance companies, has been directed towards the development of consumer protection and transparency rules, obliging insurance contracts to comply with certain standards.

Consequence of Failure to Provide Information in the Subscription of an Insurance Contract

As stated in 6.1 Obligations of the Insured and Insurer, most insurance contracts are non-negotiated contracts or adhesion contracts. The omission or misstatement of any material fact by the insured party that could influence the terms and conditions of the insurance entitles the insurer to consider the insurance contract legally terminated.

Insurance companies act through agents who may be individuals or legal entities that intervene in the contracting of insurance through the exchange of proposals and acceptance of said insurance, through marketing and through the provision of advice to enter into such contracts, and whose activity is subject to the legal framework of the Insurance Contract Law, the Law of Insurance Institutions and Mutual Insurance Companies and the Insurance and Bonding Agents Regulations.

Even though the insurance agent is usually considered an intermediary, the truth is that in Mexican law they are considered an agent of the company, when they act according to its instructions and direction, and represents it, since their activity binds the insurer in the contracting of the insurance; however, they have the obligation to provide advice to the insured in relation to the contracting of the insurance.

In terms of applicable legislation, in order to be valid, the insurance contract (as well as its additions and amendments) must be in writing, and it is perfected from the moment in which the insurer is aware of the acceptance of the offer by the insurance-contracting party.

The insurer is obliged to deliver to the contracting party a policy stating the rights and obligations of the parties, which must contain at least the following:

  • the names and addresses of the contracting parties and the signature of the insurance company;
  • the designation of the insured thing or person;
  • the nature of the risks guaranteed;
  • the time from which the risk is guaranteed and the duration of this guarantee;
  • the amount of the guarantee; and
  • the insurance fee or premium.

Beneficiaries of an Insurance Contract

According to Mexican law, it is possible to take out insurance on one's own behalf or on behalf of another person, even without the designation of the person of the insured third party.

An example of this is D&O liability insurance in which only those persons (without identifying them) who fall within the general conditions of the insurance to be considered as directors and/or officers of a company are established as beneficiaries of the insurance.

The position is no different with regard to consumer contracts or reinsurance.

Alternative risk transfer in insurance refers to non-traditional solutions for transferring risks. In Mexico, this figure has been incorporated in products such as financial guarantee insurance and parametric insurance.

Financial guarantee insurance is regulated in the Law of Financial Institutions and in the Sole Insurance and Bonding Circular, and specific rules for their operation have also been published.

Additionally, parametric insurance is beginning to make inroads into the Mexican market, both by private companies and by the government. In June 2022, the granting of parametric insurance for social protection to small corn farmers in some states such as Oaxaca and Tabasco was announced; this is a pilot programme led by the government and some Mexican insurance companies.

The Law of Insurance and Bonding Institutions does not specify provisions for ART transactions in other jurisdictions with implications in Mexico. However, there are no explicit bans in this matter.

Whether other jurisdictions celebrate ART transactions that may be validated in Mexico will depend on the specific acts celebrated in the foreign jurisdiction with regard to Mexican insurers.

Where ART transactions signed in other jurisdictions are part of a reinsurance or co-insurance contract with a Mexican insurer, this operation will be considered as a reinsurance or co-insurance contract; this applies only where those acts are part of the contract and comply with the requirements of Mexican law for recognition as a reinsurance contract.

Insurance contracts are regulated by the Insurance Contract Law and in a supplementary manner by the rules of construction of contracts contained in the Code of Commerce and the Federal Civil Code.

The Insurance Contract Law provides that the policy conditions, scope, terms, exclusions, limitations, deductibles, and any other modality established in the coverage or plans offered by the insurance company, as well as the rights and obligations of the contracting parties, insured or beneficiaries must be drafted in terms that leave no room for doubt as to the risks covered and those that are excepted, restricted or conditioned in any way.

Regarding the latter, the law is clear in stating that the insurance company must respond to all events that present the nature of risk that has been insured, unless a certain risk or event is expressly excluded, limited, or subordinated in a precise manner.

Consequently, if a risk is not expressly excluded, circumscribed, or reserved from the coverage established in the policy in a clear and precise manner, the insurance company shall have the obligation to respond to it upon the occurrence of the incident, under the terms agreed in the contract.

As stated in previous answers, insurance contracts are classified as “adhesion contracts”, which are those whose clauses are drafted by only one of the parties, while the other party is limited to accepting or rejecting them, without being able to modify them. It is for this reason that there are special rules different from those applicable to the construction of freely negotiated contracts, so that any doubt is constructed against the stipulating party – ie, the insurer.

Therefore, the obscurity of the clauses in such (adhesion) contracts must be constructed in favour of the insured (consumers), who are not responsible for the drafting of the contract.

As stated in 8.1 Interpretation of Insurance Contracts and use of Extraneous Evidence, the Insurance Contract Law provides that the policy conditions, scope, terms, exclusions, limitations, deductibles and any other modality established in the coverage or plans offered by the insurance company, as well as the rights and obligations of the contracting parties, insured or beneficiaries must be drafted in terms that leave no room for doubt as to the risks covered and those that are excepted, restricted or conditioned in any way.

Under Mexican law, there is no particular form of words necessary to constitute a warranty, and, in fact, they are generally treated as a condition precedent and are not treated differently to other contractual terms.

As stated 8.2 Warranties, the Insurance Contract Law provides that the policy conditions, scope, terms, exclusions, limitations, deductibles and any other modality established in the coverage or plans offered by the insurance company, as well as the rights and obligations of the contracting parties, insured or beneficiaries must be drafted in terms that leave no room for doubt as to the risks covered and those that are excepted, restricted or conditioned in any way.

The breach of a condition precedent (if material to the loss that arises) will discharge the insurer from liability under the policy as long as it is clear from the content of the policy that such breach constitutes a discharge of liability.

In Mexico, there are two procedures to claim insurance coverage: (i) a conciliatory or mediation procedure before the National Commission for the Protection and Defense of Users of Financial Services (CONDUSEF) and (ii) through the competent courts by filing an Ordinary Commercial Trial or Oral Commercial Trial, depending on whether liquid or illiquid benefits are claimed. The filing of the former is not a procedural requirement for the latter.

A claim for the performance of service or consumer contracts can be filed through a conciliatory proceeding before the Federal Consumer Attorney's Office (PROFECO) or through an Ordinary Commercial Trial or an Oral Commercial Trial.

The term to file a lawsuit to claim the compliance of an insurance contract is two years, as a general rule, and five years in the case of life insurance, which is interrupted in the case of filing a claim before CONDUSEF, and restarts as of the day after the conciliation hearing in which the rights of the parties are safeguarded for not having reached an agreement or where they have agreed to submit to arbitration.

There are several cases in which an unidentified beneficiary or other third party may claim an insurance payment. An example of this would be in the case of liability insurance where the victim can sue the insurer directly. Another example would be in the case of legal expenses insurance where lawyers could sue the insurer directly for payment of their fees.

For hearing any controversy related to insurance contracts entered into in Mexico by insurance companies authorised as such by the Mexican regulatory authorities, the competent courts shall be those of Mexico.

Since insurance contracts are “adhesion contracts”, and in the event that the lawsuit is filed by the insured, the competent courts will be those chosen by the insured, even if the contract has indicated a different court.

Suing for the payment of an insurance indemnity must be done by means of an Oral Commercial Trial, which has the particularity that ordinary appeals (ie, appeals and/or revocations) are not admitted, and consists of the following stages.

  • The filing of the lawsuit together with the offer of evidence takes place.
  • The summons occurs.
  • An answer to the claim and an offer of evidence is given, for which purpose the insurer shall have a period of nine business days;
  • Once the claim has been answered, the judge will notify the plaintiff with such answer within three business days.
  • Once the notification with the answer to the lawsuit has been served, the judge will set a date for the preliminary hearing, which must be held within the following ten business days.
  • At the preliminary hearing, the following occurs:
    1. the parties will be urged to reach an agreement;
    2. the undisputed facts will be determined;
    3. the fixing of evidentiary issues will take place;
    4. qualification on the admissibility of evidence will take place;
    5. summons for the trial hearing within the following 40 days will take place.
  • At the trial hearing, the presentation of evidence, pleadings and issue of judgment will take place.

A foreign judgment may be validly enforced in Mexico, provided that this is not contrary to Mexican public policy.

The requirements for enforcing a judgment issued abroad in Mexico are as follows:

  • that the requirements set forth in the Federal Code of Civil Procedures regarding letters rogatory are complied with;
  • that it is not a real action;
  • that the judge has had jurisdiction to hear and judge the matter;
  • that the defendant has been notified or summoned in person;
  • that it has the character of res judicata; and
  • that the action that gave rise to it is not the subject matter of a lawsuit that is pending between the same parties before a Mexican court and which a Mexican court has previously heard.

As a general rule, in any commercial contract containing an arbitration clause, such a clause is valid and enforceable.

Although it is true that the will of the parties is the supreme law of contracts in commercial matters, including insurance contracts, it is also true that this generic rule in commercial matters is not applicable to the submission agreement when the insured is submitted to the jurisdiction of an arbitration court.

This is because in insurance contracts the aim is to safeguard the rights of the user, and to ensure equity, certainty, and legal security in the relationship between the insurer and the insured. Based on the these premises, the arbitration clause agreed in an insurance contract is not valid in the event of a dispute if it is agreed that it be settled through arbitration, and even more so if the place where the arbitration is to be carried out is different from the place where the insured has his usual place of residence.

Being an adhesion contract, its terms are not negotiable, and although the insured may choose not to enter into it if they do not want to be bound by the terms stipulated therein, this would imply that they could not enjoy the insurance they wish to contract for, which shows that if the consumer wants to enjoy the referred insurance, they are forced to subscribe to the adhesion contract on the terms in which it is drafted and with the conditions imposed by the insurer.

This shows that the insured cannot oppose what was previously stipulated in the referred contract and that therefore there is no evidence that the insured has expressed their will to submit to an arbitration clause.

According to Mexican law, arbitration awards may be validly enforced in Mexico and for such purpose the intervention of the Mexican courts in commercial matters, whether of local, state, or federal jurisdiction, will be required.

Although Mexico is a party to the New York Convention for the enforcement of arbitration awards rendered abroad, its application is not usually very effective, and even the enforcement of an arbitration award in Mexico is usually at least as time-consuming as the arbitration proceeding itself.

The authority in charge and empowered to carry out a conciliatory procedure between the insured and the insurer is CONDUSEF, and it is also empowered to act as arbitrator.

Although currently in Mexico there are alternative justice centres in the states that depend on the Superior Courts of Justice of each of the jurisdictions, alternative dispute resolution is still little known and little used, especially in insurance-related matters, where users generally go to CONDUSEF and/or the courts to enforce their rights.

In terms of Mexican law, in the event that the insurers do not comply with the obligations assumed in the insurance contract within the terms established for such a purpose, they must pay the creditor an indemnity for late payment.

The insurer paying the indemnity shall be subrogated, up to the amount paid, in all rights and actions against third parties corresponding to the insured due to the damage suffered.

The insurer may be released in whole or in part from its obligations if the subrogation is prevented by acts or omissions originating from the insured.

The right to subrogation shall not be applicable where the insured has a marital relationship, kinship by consanguinity or affinity up to the second degree, or civil relationship with the person who has caused the damage.

In the insurance sector, the use of technological means has increased every day, both for the distribution, marketing, and operation of insurance, which has been reflected in the modification of the insurance legal framework. Although not to the expected extent, there has also been legislation in various aspects, such as operative areas.

In this regard, in 2018 the “New Model” was implemented, which consists of a model that uses technological tools or means for the rendering of insurance services with modalities different from those existing in the market at the time of granting the authorisation to operate, where such authorisation will be temporary. This model is regulated by the Law to Regulate Financial Technology Institutions and Chapter 41.3 of the Sole Insurance and Bonding Circular.

Through this, a company can be incorporated for a term, to operate insurance through technological means. Among the requirements that are requested for authorisation are the following:

  • that the service must be rendered by a controlled means, which represents a benefit to the client;
  • that the project must be in a stage of beginning operations and that the project can be started up immediately; and
  • that the company must have sufficient means, insurance, guarantees or other mechanisms to compensate the client for any damages caused during the term of the temporary authorisation.

Through this option, a pilot programme operates, which may not be valid for more than one year with a single extension of one more year.

Likewise, insurtech activities have increased in Mexico, including the creation of Asociacion Insurtech Mexico, which estimated that by 2021 there were at least 43 startups engaged in insurtech activity.

In 2018, the Law to Regulate Financial Technology Institutions was issued, through which the services provided by financial institutions through technological means began to be regulated. For insurance matters, such law is also applicable in conjunction with the provisions of the Sole Insurance and Bonding Circular.

As stated in 10.1 Insurtech Developments, through these provisions insurtech has begun to be regulated, so it is clear that in Mexico there is a concern and interest to venture into the issues of technological development associated with insurance.

While it is true that there is still a long way to go in terms of insurtech, there is concern both from legislators and from the regulatory entity, the National Insurance and Bonding Commission, to continue developing policies and provisions to achieve progress in insurtech issues.

In the current scenario, the main emerging risks in Mexico are pandemic diseases, infectious diseases, cybersecurity, social and political movements, and catastrophic risks.

On the one hand, public health continues to be an important risk to be addressed, since, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, secondary health effects are just beginning to become known and continue to cause health consequences for the insured population as a whole. Likewise, outbreaks of other diseases have begun to appear in the population, such as simian smallpox and infantile hepatitis.

On the other hand, in view of recent events in the social and political context where there have been several incidents involving hacks, it has also become important to pay attention to cybersecurity issues and also to contingencies due to political matters, such as social movements or even measures adopted by the government that may affect companies.

Finally, catastrophic risks in Mexico are still present, since due to its geographical location, Mexico is constantly exposed to earthquakes and hurricanes.

For COVID-19 pandemic issues, health insurance policies contemplated an exclusion of coverage for pandemics or epidemics, which, in most cases, was not applied by the insurers and they covered the claims, registering such modifications to their contracts with the National Insurance and Bonding Commission. In addition, this regulatory authority granted regulatory facilities to insurance institutions so that they could incorporate risks derived from COVID-19 in their products.

Mexican insurance companies have also increased the number of products that include political risks.

Likewise, in recent years, parametric insurance (also known as index insurance) has been evolving and used increasingly, and in Mexico this type of insurance is commonly required for earthquakes and hurricanes, and more recently for pandemics.

Post-Pandemic Regulatory Changes

As noted in 11.2 New Products or Alternative Solutions, many insurance policies have included changes to the clauses of medical expense insurance policies, in some cases incorporating COVID-19 into their coverage, or limiting the coverage they provide. In this regard, it should be noted that it was the Mexican insurance companies themselves who incorporated coverage for this disease and, in response to this reaction, the regulatory body, ie, the National Insurance and Bonding Commission, supported the decision and granted facilities so that it would not only remain a matter of practice but would be duly incorporated into regulation.

The COVID-19 claims have not been closed, since the insurance companies are still dealing with judicial disputes of multiple claims resulting from COVID-19 diseases and illnesses, as far as medical expenses and life insurance are concerned.

In view of this panorama, it is very likely that there will be changes in the insurance legal framework, especially with regard to judicial criteria, since the judicial disputes are still ongoing and many of them have yet to be resolved, which will undoubtedly set a paradigm depending on the enforceable obligations and the compliance of the insurers.

Throughout 2022, there have been significant developments in judicial criteria. Relevant regulatory developments include the following:

  • in medical expense insurance, prescriptions do not prove the illness claim in trial;
  • the obligation of insurers to protect the rights of consumers providing their clients with complete information in a reliable manner; and
  • the liability insurance of a car must cover moral damage.
Guerra, Hidalgo y Mendoza, SC

Avenida Paseo de la Reforma 509
(Chapultepec Uno)
Piso 19, Colonia Cuauhtemoc
Alcaldia Cuauhtemoc
06500
Mexico City, Mexico

+52 55 36 84 90 00

contacto@guerrahm.mx www.guerrahm.com
Author Business Card

Trends and Developments


Authors



Guerra, Hidalgo y Mendoza, SC was founded in 2020 as a high-tier boutique Mexican firm specialising in bankruptcy and restructurings (both in and out of court) civil, commercial, insurance and bond litigation, arbitration, and other dispute resolution methods. Its partners have more than two decades acting as counsel to individuals, companies, national and international institutions, banking, and government in high-profile disputes. The firm has successfully achieved results in a wide range of complex work, including federal and state, trial and appellate, and through arbitration and other forms of alternative dispute resolution. Its dispute resolution lawyers employ the most appropriate tools and strategies for each stage of the process and each unique situation. Whether through the timely use of innovative alternative dispute resolution techniques or skilful and persuasive work at court, clients can count on the firm’s lawyers to maximise their prospects for a successful outcome.

The New Judicial Interpretation of the Coverage of Non-pecuniary Damages for Automobile Insurance

The protection of consumer interests as a fundamental right

In Mexico, the right to consumer protection has been elevated to constitutional rank and has been one of the most protected rights by the highest courts in recent years, since several judicial criteria have been issued that have laid the foundations of the obligations of insurance companies regarding the obligation to protect the rights of insured parties in their capacity as consumers.

Article 28 paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the United Mexican States provides for the right to protect the interests of consumers, the purpose of which is to counteract the inequalities that may arise between the parties to a consumer relationship, and provides the consumer with the means and legal protection necessary to promote a proper organisation and ensure the best care of his interests in the face of possible disadvantageous situations. In this sense, the aim is to ensure fairness, transparency, and legal certainty in the relationship between consumers and suppliers.

Thus, and as stated, consumer protection has constitutional rank and has been recognised as a fundamental right whose purpose is, essentially, the elimination of inequalities in the consumption process, as well as the organisation and defence of consumer rights, through state intervention, in terms of Article 28 paragraph 3 of the Constitution. Such protection also includes consumers or users of financial services, and particularly those of the insurance sector. In this sense, although the insurance contract is an agreement of wills, there is also a certain inequality between the insurance provider and the users of the insurance or the insured party, since it is generally an adhesion contract, in which there is an imbalance in the positions of the insurer as an expert in the matter and the contracting party or insured party, in terms of compromising or negotiating its general conditions.

The adhesion contract

Contracts whose general clauses are predisposed – that is to say, previously drafted by one of the contracting parties, to uniformly regulate certain conventional relations – are doctrinally called “adhesion contracts”, which are those whose clauses are drafted by only one of the parties, while the other party is limited to accepting or rejecting them without being able to modify them.

In these legal acts there is a will to produce effects, but there is no freedom of configuration of the written content on the part of the adhering party, who must accept or reject the pre-drafted clauses without being able to modify or negotiate them.

Thus, adhesion contracts are created with a clear imbalance between the parties, since the weak contracting party does not have the possibility of negotiating the terms in which the contract must be drafted, leaving said party with only the option of entering into the contract or rejecting it.

The distinctive feature of the adhesion contract is that the parties do not agree on equal terms, nor do they have the possibility of compromising or negotiating as between equals. Therefore, it is highly significant that one of the parties has limited autonomy of will (to the mere “freedom to contract”), since such autonomy is reduced to deciding whether or not to accept the terms of the contract – it thus lacks true “freedom to contract”, ie, the freedom to decisively influence the content and regulation of the legal relationship such party enters into.

Thus, the distinguishing feature of the adhesion contract lies in the fact that the clauses are not drafted by both parties, but are predisposed (and sometimes imposed) by one of them to the other, who can only accept or reject them. That is to say, the nature of the adhesion contract does not depend on the fact that it has been drafted by one of the parties, but on the fact that the autonomy of the other party’s will is reduced to its minimum expression, either simple acceptance, or limited to small modifications of the articles, and having to adhere fully to what has been previously drafted.

In summary, adhesion contracts are characteristic because:

  • their clauses are previously and unilaterally established by a supplier of goods or services;
  • all terms and conditions for the acquisition of products or services are set out in uniform formats;
  • the offer is made to a community; and
  • the contract is drawn up exclusively by one of the parties.

Insurance consumers and the adhesion contract

Pursuant to Article 56 of the Law for the Protection and Defense of Users of Financial Services, an adhesion contract is understood to be a contract prepared unilaterally by a financial institution, whose stipulations on the terms and conditions applicable to the contracting of operations or services are uniform for users.

Additionally, Article 202 of the Law of Insurance and Bonding Institutions states, as applicable, that:

“Insurance institutions may only offer to the public the services related to the operations authorised by this law, through insurance products that comply with the provisions of Articles 200 and 201 of this law.

In the case of insurance products offered to the general public and which are executed and formalised through adhesion contracts, understood as those prepared unilaterally in formats by an insurance institution and in which the terms and conditions applicable to the insured party are previously established, as well as the model clauses prepared to be incorporated through additional endorsements to such contracts, in addition to complying with the provisions of the first paragraph of this article, they must be previously registered before the Commission under the terms of Article 203 hereof. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to insurance products that, without being formalised through adhesion contracts, refer to group insurance or collective insurance of the operations indicated in Sections I and II of Article 25 of this law, and to surety insurance provided for in subsection (g), Section III of Article 25 hereof.”

The automobile insurance contract in Mexico

The primary purpose of insurance contracts, particularly automobile insurances, is to protect the insured automobile with respect to a third party’s property with which it may have an incident or accident. However, depending on the coverage, it usually also protects the drivers, passengers and third parties involved in an incident or accident.

In Mexico, in accordance with the Law of Roads, Bridges and Federal Motor Carriers, all vehicles travelling on federal highways, roads and bridges must have a mandatory vehicle liability insurance that guarantees third parties for damages that may be caused to their property and persons. In addition, the Mexico City Traffic Regulations establish that motorists travelling in Mexico City must have a current civil liability insurance policy covering at least civil liability for damages to third parties, both personal injury and property.

In this sense, and as a matter of law, in order to drive a vehicle it is necessary to have a mandatory insurance policy covering civil liability.

By virtue of the foregoing, the driver of a vehicle, even if he is not the contracting party or directly insured, is the beneficiary of the insurance coverage contracted as a user.

In the case of compulsory automobile insurance, such insurance limits the autonomy of the will or contractual freedom and imposes on the insurer the obligation to establish the necessary conditions to comply with the legal provision required by compulsory insurance.

Civil liability in Mexico

Civil liability refers to the obligation of a person to repair the damages caused to another person as a result of an action or omission deriving from the breach of a contract or a duty of care.

According to the doctrine and particularly the theory of civil liability, the person who causes damage to another is obliged to repair it. This damage may be caused by a breach of contract or the non-compliance of the generic duty of every person not to harm another. The first case is known as contractual liability, and the second as tortious liability. In turn, tortious liability may be subjective or objective. Subjective liability is based on the conduct of the tortfeasor, while in objective (or strict) liability the subjective element is absent – ie, fault or negligence, since the damage is caused by the involvement of risk of a good that is considered dangerous.

In the Mexican legal system, subjective and strict liability are regulated, respectively, in Articles 1910 and 1913 of the Federal Civil Code. These legal provisions define subjective liability as that duty to repair the damage caused to a third party when said damage has been caused by the defendant’s negligent or culpable conduct, while strict liability is that derived from the damage generated by the materialisation of the risk caused by a good considered dangerous.

In conclusion, the legal right protected by both subjective and objective civil liability is precisely the indemnity for damages caused by an unlawful conduct or by a created risk. This is on the understanding that such indemnity must be fair and comprehensive, which implies returning things to the state in which they were (the re-establishment of the previous situation), and if this is not possible, establishing the payment of an indemnity as compensation for the damages caused when the duty to repair arises.

Non-pecuniary damages in Mexico

In terms of Mexican civil law, non-pecuniary damages are understood as the effect that a person suffers in his feelings, affection, beliefs, decorum, honour, reputation, private life, prestige or physical appearance. Non-pecuniary damage is believed to exist when the freedom or physical or psychological integrity of persons is illegitimately violated or impaired.

From the foregoing, it can be inferred that in Mexico non-pecuniary damages are regulated as a subjective appreciation effect suffered by a person and that, without expressly stating it, derives from an unlawful act, being that this damage affects rights of a non-monetary nature, ie, that in themselves do not have an economic appreciation.

Thus, it is appropriate to define non-pecuniary damage as the injury to a non-pecuniary (or spiritual) right or interest that is assumed based on a subjective right.

Non-pecuniary damage is autonomous and independent to material damage and proceeds by contractual and tortious liability.

The right to full reparation or fair indemnity

The right to full reparation or fair indemnity implies that the person who suffered a damage caused by another person (who has no obligation to compensate) should be returned to the state in which he/she was, or that indemnity should be fixed for such a situation. This necessarily includes satisfying any type of damage caused, whether pecuniary or moral.

Unconstitutionality of the exclusion of non-pecuniary damages from the civil liability coverage in the automobile insurance contract

Recently, the First Chamber of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice issued Court Precedent number 1a/J 122/2022 (11th) (which is mandatory for all courts in the country), upon resolving the direct writ of amparo under review filed by an insurance company, in which, among other issues, it was determined:

“...that in a compulsory vehicle insurance contract, the civil liability coverage must be comprehensive; that is to say, it must include both material damage and non-pecuniary damage, up to the amount of the insured sum. Therefore, automobile insurance contracts with such coverage, which exclude non-pecuniary damages, are not an effective insurance and their relative clause is unconstitutional since such exclusion cannot be valid to the detriment of the insured or third-party driver entitled to benefit from the insurance in the same position of the former.”

The considerations on the part of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice were, in the relevant part, the following:

“100. Therefore, the issue to be resolved in this case is to determine whether it is appropriate for the insurer, in the liability coverage of the automobile insurance, to exclude (on the basis of the insured amount), the corresponding indemnity for non-pecuniary damages.

101. Thus, in terms of the useful effect of the automobile insurance contract, it is logical that, in the case of civil liability, this should be covered in its entirety; that is to say, contemplating both the material and non-pecuniary damages, of course, up to the amount of the insured sum. This is also coherent with what the traffic regulations refer to as regards guaranteeing the damages that may be caused to property and persons. Otherwise, the contract would lack effectiveness in terms of its intrinsic purpose and intention in accordance with the regulations on the matter (supra paragraphs 69 to 70), directly impacting the rights of the insured, users and third parties entitled to benefit from the contract. The foregoing could even generate a distortion for, for example, third parties involved in an incident, who, depending on the insurance contracted by the car that caused the incident and its “liability exclusions”, could or could not have damages they suffered covered in a known and effective manner.

102. In accordance with the foregoing, the Insurance Contract Law contemplates liability insurance, by virtue of which the insurance company is obligated up to the limit of the insured amount and the right to indemnity corresponds to the damaged third party, in accordance with Articles 145 and 146 of said legislation, (46) without the exclusion of non-pecuniary damages (47).

103. In view of this, even though the insurance contract is governed by the constitutional principle of contractual freedom, although limited in the case of compulsory insurance, an exclusion of non-pecuniary damages cannot be valid in vehicle insurance with civil liability coverage, because it is notorious that it would not comply with its purpose of protecting the patrimony of the insured or third-party driver entitled to the insurance benefits, since the risk run with the use of vehicles generally implies liability for both types of damage.

104. On the other hand, it does not go unnoticed that when the insurance companies calculate the insurance costs and the premiums to be paid by the contracting party, they determine these according to the insured sums for which they accept to be liable; they even insure the fulfilment of the obligations contracted according to the insured sums, so there is no objective and reasonable justification for establishing exclusions of non-pecuniary damages if, in the end, the maximum obligation they assume does not go beyond the insured sum.

105. In this regard, it is reiterated that the expert in the contractual relationship is the insurer and not the clients, who in most cases are unaware of the different concepts that may be involved in an accident in which damages are caused to third parties with the use of vehicles; not so the insurer, who knows well, as part of its business activity, the implications of an incident in this line of business. Therefore, it is not admissible to accept as an effective insurance that which excludes non-pecuniary damages in the civil liability coverage, because with this, it can be presumed the sale of an illusory insurance that will not protect the patrimony of the client and its users to the extent needed. It is reiterated, without any valid justification being observed, if the insurer, in any way, already calculates and charges a premium, which considers the total amount for which it is obliged in the sum insured.

106. Therefore, since there is no objective and reasonable justification for excluding non-pecuniary damages from the civil liability of a compulsory vehicle insurance, such exclusion is not valid and should not operate to the detriment of the insured or third-party driver entitled to benefit from the insurance in the same position of the former.”

Conclusions

Judicial disputes in insurance matters and their resolutions generate more and more case law and transcendental changes in the regulation of insurance operations. Recently, the change that they generated was with respect to compulsory vehicle insurance. The Supreme Court of Justice determined that, for such products, the civil liability coverage must contemplate the payment for non-pecuniary damages and the contracts that exclude such coverage are ineffective, making the stipulation of such clauses unconstitutional.

In this respect, the implementation of the risk of non-pecuniary damages within the civil liability coverage for automobile insurance seems to represent an immeasurable contingency for the insurers, since they would assume risks that they cannot face. The payment for non-pecuniary damages also depends on many factors and, from the beginning of the insurance subscription, it would be very unlikely that they would determine how much a judgment would amount to and on that basis decide whether or not to assume the risk. However, the Court pointed out that the amount for which the insurer will be liable will always be the sum insured of each contract; therefore, the payment of the claim is not left open and insurers are not burdened with assuming risks that they cannot assume.

Conversely, the Court’s precedent implies for insurers the implementation of changes in their vehicle insurance products, changes within their actuarial calculations for their reserves and implementation of policies for their underwriting and claims resolution departments, since the Court’s decision implies that they incorporate a new risk to their products, which, although in some cases was implicitly contemplated (by contemplating the coverage of property damage), must now be regulated even more rigorously in accordance with the guidelines of the highest court.

Finally, the determination of the Supreme Court of Justice should not only be seen as the implementation of the coverage of non-pecuniary damages for automobile insurance, but also as the implementation of consumer (insured) protection rules in insurance matters, which the Court increasingly dictates by applying them to particular cases (in this case to specific insurance products), and which insurance companies must take into account in the implementation of their products and in the resolution of their claims.

Guerra, Hidalgo y Mendoza, SC

Avenida Paseo de la Reforma 509
(Chapultepec Uno)
Piso 19, Colonia Cuauhtemoc
Alcaldia Cuauhtemoc, 06500
Mexico City
Mexico

+52 55 36 84 90 00

contacto@guerrahm.mx www.guerrahm.com
Author Business Card

Law and Practice

Authors



Guerra, Hidalgo y Mendoza, SC was founded in 2020 as a high-tier boutique Mexican firm specialising in bankruptcy and restructurings (both in and out of court) civil, commercial, insurance and bond litigation, arbitration, and other dispute resolution methods. Its partners have more than two decades acting as counsel to individuals, companies, national and international institutions, banking, and government in high-profile disputes. The firm has successfully achieved results in a wide range of complex work, including federal and state, trial and appellate, and through arbitration and other forms of alternative dispute resolution. Its dispute resolution lawyers employ the most appropriate tools and strategies for each stage of the process and each unique situation. Whether through the timely use of innovative alternative dispute resolution techniques or skilful and persuasive work at court, clients can count on the firm’s lawyers to maximise their prospects for a successful outcome.

Trends and Developments

Authors



Guerra, Hidalgo y Mendoza, SC was founded in 2020 as a high-tier boutique Mexican firm specialising in bankruptcy and restructurings (both in and out of court) civil, commercial, insurance and bond litigation, arbitration, and other dispute resolution methods. Its partners have more than two decades acting as counsel to individuals, companies, national and international institutions, banking, and government in high-profile disputes. The firm has successfully achieved results in a wide range of complex work, including federal and state, trial and appellate, and through arbitration and other forms of alternative dispute resolution. Its dispute resolution lawyers employ the most appropriate tools and strategies for each stage of the process and each unique situation. Whether through the timely use of innovative alternative dispute resolution techniques or skilful and persuasive work at court, clients can count on the firm’s lawyers to maximise their prospects for a successful outcome.

Compare law and practice by selecting locations and topic(s)

{{searchBoxHeader}}

Select Topic(s)

loading ...
{{topic.title}}

Please select at least one chapter and one topic to use the compare functionality.