Law No. 15.040, of December 16, 2024, known as the Legal Framework for Insurance, represents the most comprehensive reform of Brazilian insurance legislation in recent decades. Among the various innovations introduced, those related to the statute of limitations stand out, whose regulation assumes special practical relevance in the relationships between policyholders, insurers, beneficiaries, brokers, and other stakeholders in the insurance market.
Until the new legislation came into effect, the statute of limitations applicable to insurance law was constructed in a fragmented manner, based on the provisions of the 2002 Civil Code, especially article 206, §1, item II, and on intense case law development, notably within the Superior Court of Justice, which over the years consolidated understandings regarding deadlines, starting points for counting, and cases of suspension of the statute of limitations.
With the enactment of Law No. 15.040/2024, this scenario undergoes profound change. The new legal instrument focuses, especially in its articles 126 and 127, on specific rules regarding prescription in insurance contracts, redefining deadlines, modifying the starting point of the claim in certain cases, and regulating, in an unprecedented way, situations of suspension of the prescriptive period. At the same time, it promotes the partial repeal of the regime previously provided for in the Civil Code, directly impacting the jurisprudential orientation that had been consolidated based on these repealed rules.
In this context, this article aims to analyze the main changes brought about by the new legal framework regarding prescription in Brazilian insurance law, examining the previous regime, legislative innovations, and points of normative gaps that tend to generate interpretative controversies. Ultimately, it seeks to assess to what extent the new discipline contributes to the legal certainty of insurance relations or, conversely, demands future action from jurisprudence to consolidate more stable interpretative parameters.
Before the reform, the statute of limitations in insurance relationships was largely governed by Article 206, §1, item II, of the Civil Code, which set a one-year period for the insured's claim against the insurer. In liability insurance, this period began on the date the insured was summoned to respond to the indemnification action brought by the injured third party. In other types of insurance, the count began from the event that gave rise to the claim.
The application of this device, however, generated significant controversies, especially regarding the definition of the starting point for the statute of limitations. Initially, the prevailing understanding was that the period began to run from the occurrence of the loss. Over time, under the influence of the actio nata theory , the starting point came to be considered the date on which the insured becomes aware of the loss, recognizing that the statute of limitations cannot run before knowledge of the fact that gives rise to the claim.
This understanding was reinforced by Precedent 229 of the Superior Court of Justice , according to which the request for payment of compensation to the insurer suspends the statute of limitations until the insured is aware of the decision. Thus, the understanding was consolidated that the one-year period began with the knowledge of the claim, remaining suspended during the period of administrative analysis by the insurer.
Regarding other insurance relationships, different time limits applied. Claims by insurance brokers and representatives were subject to the five-year period stipulated in Article 206, §5, item I, of the Civil Code. Relationships between co-insurers, reinsurers, and retrocessionaires were governed by variable time limits, depending on the nature of the obligation, ranging from three years in cases involving negotiable instruments to five years in cases of liquidated debts. For beneficiaries and injured third parties, the three-year period applied, according to Article 206, §3, item IX, of the Civil Code.
Finally, regarding the request for reconsideration of the denial of coverage, the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice has established the understanding that the administrative process neither suspends nor interrupts the statute of limitations. This guidance was based on the need to avoid the indefinite prolongation of the statute of limitations through successive administrative requests.
Law 15.040/2024 centralized the statute of limitations for insurance contracts in its articles 126 and 127, expressly repealing item II of §1 of article 206 of the Civil Code. Article 126 establishes a tripartite structure of time limits, differentiating claims according to the parties to the insurance relationship.
Paragraph I of Article 126 establishes a one-year statute of limitations for claims: (a) by the insurer to collect premiums or any other claim against the insured and the policyholder; (b) by intermediaries, brokers, agents or insurance representatives and policyholders to collect their fees; (c) between co-insurers; and (d) between insurers, reinsurers and retrocessionaires. This concentration represents an important unification of time limits that were previously subject to different rules in the Civil Code.
Paragraph II of Article 126 introduces the most significant change: the insured's claim to demand compensation, capital, mathematical reserve, overdue installments of temporary or life annuities, and reimbursement of premiums in their favor prescribes in one year, counted from the date of receipt of the insurer's express and reasoned refusal. This is the main break with the previous regime: the starting point ceases to be the date of knowledge of the claim and becomes the date on which the insured becomes aware of the insurer's formal and reasoned refusal.
Paragraph III of Article 126 maintains the three-year statute of limitations for claims by beneficiaries or injured third parties to demand compensation, capital, actuarial reserve, and overdue installments of temporary or life annuities from the insurer, counted from the date of knowledge of the respective event giving rise to the claim. In this respect, the law preserves the understanding that was already in effect in the Civil Code.
The change in the starting point for the statute of limitations, from the moment the claim is reported to the moment of express and justified refusal, has far-reaching practical implications. Under the previous system, the insurer had relative predictability regarding the time limit of its exposure to the risk of being sued: starting from the moment the insured became aware of the claim, the one-year period began to run, unless suspended during the administrative review.
Under the new rule, the statute of limitations only begins after the insurer's formal denial. This means that if the insured does not report the claim, there will simply be no denial and, consequently, the statute of limitations will not run. This creates a situation of potentially indefinite exposure for the insurer, which has no control over when, or if, the insured will formally request coverage.
Article 66 of Law 15.040/2024 stipulates that the insured must promptly notify the insurer of the claim, under penalty of losing the right to insurance coverage. However, the law did not define what is meant by 'promptly', leaving open an indeterminate legal concept that will inevitably give rise to legal disputes. In the absence of an objective deadline, the matter will be decided on a case-by-case basis by the Judiciary, fueling the legal uncertainty that it sought to reduce.
Regarding the other claims in item I of article 126, such as the collection of premiums by the insurer, the remuneration of brokers, and the relationships between co-insurers and reinsurers, the law set a one-year deadline, but failed to expressly define the respective starting point, which tends to reignite discussions that legal professionals hoped to see resolved with the new legislation.
Another relevant innovation of Law No. 15.040/2024 is found in Article 127, which provides for the suspension of the statute of limitations for claims relating to the receipt of compensation or insured capital when the insurer receives a request for reconsideration of the denial of payment. The suspension ends when the interested party is notified of the final decision by the insurer.
This provision represents a change from the previously established understanding. The jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice, based on the risk of indefinitely prolonging deadlines, ruled out any suspensive effect of the request for reconsideration made through administrative channels. The new legislation, however, now allows for suspension, establishing as a limit the possibility of it occurring only once.
The limitation proves to be appropriate, as it prevents the use of the request for reconsideration as a mechanism for indefinitely extending the limitation period, while preserving the purpose of the statute of limitations and not harming the insured party seeking resolution of the dispute in the administrative sphere.
It is thus clear that the legislator sought to establish a point of equilibrium. On the one hand, it recognized the importance of attempting to resolve the conflict out of court. On the other hand, it imposed clear limits to prevent the abusive use of the mechanism, in line with the orientation that had already been adopted by case law.
Although Law No. 15.040/2024 represents a significant advance in the systematization of the statute of limitations in insurance law, the legislation is not free from relevant gaps, the overcoming of which will depend, to a large extent, on the performance of case law.
One of the most sensitive points concerns the concept of "prompt" notification of a claim, as stipulated in Article 66 of the new law. This is again an indeterminate expression, which opens the door to divergent interpretations, especially in situations where the insured claims ignorance of the event or its gradual occurrence. The absence of an objective time parameter may, in practice, allow for the notification of claims much later than they have occurred, compromising the predictability of the obligations assumed by insurers and impacting the balance of contractual relationships.
Another aspect that raises controversy is the absence of an express definition of the starting point for the statute of limitations for the claims listed in item I of article 126, especially those related to the collection of premiums by the insurer, the remuneration of brokers, and the relationships between co-insurers, reinsurers, and retrocessionaires. This legislative omission tends to generate interpretative divergences, requiring the construction of jurisprudential criteria capable of providing greater legal certainty to the application of the rule.
Finally, it is worth highlighting the issue of applying the new legislation to insurance contracts entered into before its enactment. The immediate application of the new rules, especially regarding the redefinition of the starting point for the statute of limitations, may give rise to significant discussions in the field of intertemporal law. In this scenario, the courts will have to address these controversies with technical rigor, as occurred in the consolidation of case law regarding the statute of limitations after the changes introduced by Law No. 14.195/2021.
Law No. 15.040/2024, which establishes the Legal Framework for Insurance, represents an important advance in the regulation of insurance contracts in Brazil, especially regarding the statute of limitations in the insurance field. By concentrating the rules of prescription in articles 126 and 127, the legislator conferred greater systematization to a regime that, until then, was structured from scattered provisions of the Civil Code and jurisprudential construction consolidated over the years.
Among the main innovations, the redefinition of the starting point for the insured's claim stands out. This is now the moment the insurer becomes aware of the express and reasoned refusal, replacing the previously adopted criterion based on knowledge of the loss. Added to this is the unification of the one-year statute of limitations for various insurance claims that, under the previous regime, were subject to different time limits, as well as the provision for suspension of the statute of limitations due to a request for reconsideration, limited to a single occurrence. On the other hand, the three-year period applicable to claims by beneficiaries and injured third parties remains.
Despite the progress, the new legislation left relevant questions unanswered, such as the lack of definition of the starting point for the statute of limitations for the cases foreseen in item I of article 126 and the use of indeterminate legal concepts, such as the requirement of "prompt" notification of the claim. These aspects tend to generate interpretative controversies and may compromise the predictability of insurance relationships.
In this context, the full effectiveness of the reform will depend on the actions of the jurisprudence, especially the higher courts, in consolidating understandings, filling normative gaps, and providing greater legal certainty to the application of the new regime. After all, prescription is an essential instrument for stabilizing legal relations, by temporally delimiting the exercise of claims and preventing the perpetuation of litigation. It will therefore be up to the interpreter and applier of the law to ensure that the advances introduced by the new legislation are accompanied by the necessary coherence and predictability in their application.
BRAZIL. Law No. 10.406, of January 10, 2002. Establishes the Civil Code. Official Gazette of the Union, Brasília, January 11, 2002.
BRAZIL. Law No. 15.040, of December 16, 2024. Legal Framework for Insurance. Official Gazette of the Union, Brasília, December 17, 2024.
BRAZIL. Superior Court of Justice. Summary No. 229. The request for payment of compensation to the insurer suspends the statute of limitations until the insured is notified of the decision. Brasília: STJ, 1999.
BRAZIL. Superior Court of Justice. Special Appeal No. 1.970.111-MG. Rapporteur: Justice Nancy Andrighi.
PEREIRA, Caio Mário da Silva. Institutions of civil law. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2022.
Published by:
© 2024 Vanzin & Penteado Advogados Associados.
