Through Judgment STL7781-2026 of May 6, 2026, the Labor Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter, the “SCJ”) resolved the appeal of a constitutional protection action ruling brought against a judicial decision.

The case arose in the context of a collective property/casualty insurance policy taken out by a transportation cooperative, the purpose of which was to cover its members against damages that their vehicles might suffer.

One of the covered vehicles had been sold to a new owner. However, the cooperative did not report this change to the insurer but instead kept the previous owner as the policyholder of record, even though it was charging the new owner the corresponding premium.

Sometime later, the vehicle caught fire and its current owner filed a claim with the insurer, which was objected to, among other grounds, based on an alleged lack of insurable interest, given that a different person appeared in the policy as the owner.

Consequently, the current owner brought an action for contractual civil liability against the transportation cooperative and the insurer. He attributed liability to the cooperative for having failed to inform the insurer of the change of owner, an omission that prevented payment of the indemnity.

The court of first instance denied the claims. That decision having been appealed, the tribunal reversed it and declared the contractual liability of the transportation cooperative.

The cooperative brought a tutela action alleging purported substantive and factual defects in that judgment. The SCJ denied the protection, considering the tribunal's decision to be reasonable, considering the following considerations:

1. The collective insurance and the cooperative's status as policyholder

   Collective insurance allows the policyholder of the insurance to cover a group of persons or property that hold the status of insureds under a single insurance contract.

   For this purpose, it is sufficient for the policyholder to notify the insurer of the inclusion of a new insured for that person to be incorporated and covered by the collective insurance, in accordance with the conditions set forth in the policy.

   In the present case, the transportation cooperative not only formally held the status of policyholder of the collective insurance, but also materially exercised that function by collecting the premiums through deductions made from the insureds and by managing the linkage of the vehicles to the insurance. These circumstances reinforced its status as an obligated party within the contractual insurance relationship:

   “[The cooperative] admitted, as of its answer, that the vehicle involved in the loss was linked with them and that the amounts relating to the insurance premium in respect of the contracted insurance policy were deducted on a monthly basis, which, for the panel of judges, constituted a confession with respect to the linkage contract and the deductions for payment of the premium of the insurance contract.” (Underlining and boldface outside the original text.)

2. Insurance on behalf of a third party

   The tribunal of second instance applied the figure of insurance on behalf of a third party provided for in Article 1039 of the Code of Commerce to explain the burdens and rights of the policyholder and insured under this figure: the cooperative, in its status as policyholder, assumed the contractual burdens, while the owner of the property, as insured, held the right to the indemnity benefit derived from the insurance contract.

   In this regard, the SCJ reiterated the following statement of the tribunal:

   “The panel brought up for discussion that the rule permits insurance contracts to be entered into on behalf of a third party, in which case the policyholder assumes the obligations and the third-party beneficiary holds the right to the insured benefit (Article 1039 of the Code of Commerce).”

3. The policyholder’s duty to inform the insurer

   The tribunal concluded that the transportation cooperative had full knowledge of the change of ownership of the insured property, inasmuch as it was making deductions from the member for the premium and appeared to be current in its contributions, so that the member had a legitimate expectation to believe that his vehicle was insured.

   Under these circumstances, it was not admissible for the transportation cooperative to assert that it was not incumbent upon it to inform the insurer of the development consisting of the change of owner of the insured property:

   “[The cooperative] had full knowledge of the change of owner of the trailer involved in the accident, since it was even demonstrated that deductions were made on account of insurance, which is why the assertion that «it was not its obligation to inform such situation to the insurance company» was not validatable, since, given its status as policyholder of the collective insurance policy, it was predicable that in the owner of the semitrailer […] there existed the legitimate expectation that his property was insured.” (Underlining and boldface outside the original text.)

4. Causal nexus between the omission and the harm

   The SCJ also reiterated the position of the tribunal, in which it established that the transportation cooperative’s omission to inform the insurer of the change of owner of the insured property was the direct cause of the insurer’s objection to the claim and, therefore, of its patrimonial harm:

   “«the omission incurred by the cooperative entity caused the harm alleged in the complaint,» since that failure of attention made it impossible to make the collective insurance policy effective.»”