In Judgment STC611-2026 dated January 28, 2026, the Civil, Agrarian and Rural Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (the “SCJ”) decided a constitutional action filed by an insurer that issued a machinery insurance policy to a company.
The dispute arose after the insured machinery caught fire. The company notified the occurrence of the loss to its insurance broker by email, attaching information regarding the accident, a technical data sheet for the equipment, among other documents. Following this notice of loss, the company submitted a claim to the insurer, which objected to the claim and denied payment of the indemnity.
In response to the objection, the insured company initiated summary proceedings against the insurer seeking a declaration of: (i) the existence of the insurance contract; (ii) the occurrence of the covered loss; and (iii) the insurer’s breach of the insurance contract for failing to pay the corresponding indemnity.
The judge of first instance (i) declared that the insured event had occurred and (ii) ordered the insurer to pay an indemnity as well as default interest in favor of the insured company, calculated from the date on which the claim was submitted directly to the insurer. Both parties appealed the decision.
The court of appeals modified the judgment and, as a result, increased the amount of the award and changed the date from which default interest payable by the insurer was to accrue, setting it as the month following the notice of loss given by the company through its insurance broker, rather than the date on which the claim was submitted to the insurer.
For this reason, the insurer filed a constitutional action against the appellate decision, arguing that the court incurred in substantive and evidentiary defects by incorrectly interpreting Articles 1077 and 1080 of the Colombian Commercial Code and by equating a notice of loss addressed to the insurance broker with a formal claim submitted to the insurer.
The SCJ granted constitutional relief to the insurer and set aside the appellate court’s judgment, based on the following considerations:
- Burden of proof of the insured and the insurer’s payment period
The SCJ recalled the provisions of Articles 1077 and 1080 of the Colombian Commercial Code, which establish, respectively, that the insured or beneficiary must prove, judicially or extrajudicially, the occurrence and amount of the loss before the insurer, and that the insurer has a period of one month from such proof to pay the indemnity.
The SCJ emphasized that this one-month period runs from the date on which the insured proves the occurrence and amount of the loss directly before the insurer, and not from the notice of loss.
- Payment of default interest
The SCJ emphasized that the sanction consisting of the payment of default interest only arises from the month following the date on which the insured or beneficiary proves before the insurer the occurrence and amount of the loss, provided that the insurer allows such period to lapse without making payment and has not raised well-founded objections.
Accordingly, the appellate court could not impose default interest on the insurer calculated from the date on which the loss was communicated to the insurance broker.
- Role of the insurance intermediary
The SCJ, citing its own case law, reiterated that insurance brokers and intermediaries are not parties to the insurance contracts that they offer, promote, or procure the renewal of. Consequently, a notice of loss sent to an insurance broker does not constitute the formal claim that must be submitted to the insurer pursuant to Article 1077 of the Colombian Commercial Code.
In the words of the insurer, whose argument was upheld by the SCJ, such communications constitute internal exchanges between the intermediary and its client and do not trigger the one-month period established in Article 1080 of the Colombian Commercial Code, since the claim must be addressed to the insurer, which is the party contractually bound to pay the indemnity.