Through rulings STC 399-2026, STC 1374-2026, STC 1596-2026, STC 1783-2026, and STC 1940-2026, the Civil, Agrarian and Rural Chamber of the Colombian Supreme Court of Justice (the “CSJ” for its acronym in Spanish) addressed the duty of disclosure and the consequences of misrepresentations in life insurance.

In general terms, all decisions concern the omission or concealment of material information by the policyholder/insured towards the insurer at the time of the risk disclosure, as well as the legal consequences of such conduct.

These rulings reflect the CSJ’s current approach to the interpretation of Article 1058 of the Commercial Code, the application of the principle of utmost good faith in insurance contracts, and the consequences of misrepresentation by the policyholder/insured.

Below we set out some of the CSJ’s main considerations:

1. Duty of the policyholder to truthfully comply with the duty of disclosure

   The CSJ reiterated that the duty of disclosure is an essential pre-contractual duty of the policyholder/insured (as applicable), which must be fulfilled with respect to the circumstances determining the risk, in accordance with the questionnaire provided by the insurer. It further clarified that this duty is not mitigated by the insurer’s decision to dispenses the practice of medical examinations.

   This was stated in judgment STC 1374-2026, highlighting the analysis carried out by the appellate court:

   “The Court conducted a normative analysis based on Articles 1058 and 1158 of the Commercial Code, emphasizing that the policyholder is legally required to truthfully disclose the facts and circumstances that determine the state of risk in accordance with the questionnaire provided by the insurer, and that any misrepresentation or inaccuracy regarding material facts which, if known, would have led the insurer not to enter into the contract or to do so on more onerous terms, gives rise to the relative nullity of the contract, without such obligation being mitigated by the insurer having dispensed the practice of a medical examination (…)”
    
2. Good faith as a governing principle of the insurance contract

   The CSJ reiterated that insurance contracts are governed by the principle of utmost good faith, as a bilateral standard of conduct requiring loyalty and honesty in the formation of the contract.

   In judgment STC 399-2026, it clarified that the concealment of medical conditions constitutes a direct breach of this principle:

   “Good faith is understood as a twofold postulate: on the one hand, it entails the legitimate belief in the propriety of the contractual counterpart; on the other, it imposes a duty to act with loyalty, honesty, and integrity from the formation of the contract through its performance (…)”
   (…)
   “Accordingly, it concluded that, «the concealment of pre-existing illnesses or conditions that required the [Insured] to seek medical consultation for many years and undergo examinations and treatment with medication, constitutes conduct contrary to good faith (…)”
    
3. Relative nullity as a consequence of misrepresentation
   The CSJ reiterated that misrepresentation in the disclosure of the state of risk results in the relative nullity of the insurance contract, pursuant to Article 1058 of the Commercial Code.

   In judgment STC 1374-2026, it clarified that such nullity restores the parties to their pre-contractual position under Article 1746 of the Civil Code, thereby excluding any contractual relationship and allowing the insurer to retain premiums under Article 1059 of the Commercial Code:

   “(…) given that the declaration of relative nullity of the insurance contract has the effect of restoring the parties to the position they would have been in had the contract never existed, pursuant to Article 1746 of the Civil Code, such that no legal relationship subsists capable of grounding contractual liability, nor may performance of obligations arising from a voided contract be demanded, without the retention of premiums provided for in Article 1059 of the Commercial Code implying the continuation of the contract or the creation of obligations on the part of the insurer.”
    
4. Optional nature of medical examinations by the insurer

   The CSJ reiterated that the performance of medical examinations by the insurer to verify the policyholder’s health condition is not an obligation but a right; accordingly, the primary duty of disclosure rests with the policyholder.

   In judgment STC 1783-2026, the CSJ endorsed the appellate court’s position that verification of the state of risk is within the insurer’s discretion and not a mandatory burden; therefore, the consequences of any inaccuracies fall on the policyholder:

   “With respect to the insurer’s burden to carry out medical examinations on the policyholder, it reiterated the settled case law according to which such action is optional and not mandatory, insofar as «where a questionnaire exists and the policyholder fails to provide truthful information, responsibility lies exclusively with the policyholder, and not with the insurer for refraining from inspecting the state of risk.».”
    
5. Irrelevance of causation between the omitted information and the loss
   The CSJ reiterated that, for purposes of relative nullity based on misrepresentation, it is not necessary to establish a causal link between the omitted conditions or circumstances and the occurrence of the loss.

   In judgment STC 1374-2026, the CSJ upheld the appellate court’s decision declaring the nullity of the insurance contract even though it was not proven that the undisclosed conditions were the direct cause of the insured’s death:

   “(i) It was established that the [Insured], when completing the insurability declaration on September 18, 2018, knowingly and materially failed to disclose multiple serious chronic conditions from which she had suffered for years, […] which were decisive for the assessment of the insured risk, evidencing a clear discrepancy between what was declared in the form and the actual state of her health. Such omission constitutes misrepresentation sanctionable with relative nullity, regardless of whether the concealed conditions were the direct cause of death.”