In a recent judgment issued in January 2026, the Civil, Agrarian and Rural Chamber of the Colombian Supreme Court of Justice (the “CSJ” for its acronym in Spanish) decided a constitutional action filed by a corporate policyholder and insured under a property insurance policy known as “Plan Pyme Protegido,” which had been acquired through the distribution network of a credit institution.

The dispute arose out of a fire that occurred at the insured company’s premises. The insured submitted a claim to the insurer seeking payment of the indemnity; however, the insurer denied coverage after concluding that the loss was caused by spontaneous combustion, a peril that, pursuant to the general insurance conditions and Article 1115 of the Colombian Commercial Code, is excluded from coverage.

The insured company argued that it had not been aware of such exclusion at the time of contracting the insurance, asserting that neither the insurer nor the credit institution delivered the general and specific terms and conditions of the insurance. Accordingly, it contended that an exclusion of which it had no knowledge could not be enforced against it.

The claims were dismissed at both first and second instance. In the constitutional action proceedings, the CSJ denied the plaintiff’s claims and upheld the lower courts’ decisions based on the following considerations:

1. Duty of disclosure owed to the policyholder
   The CSJ reiterated that the insurer must inform the policyholder clearly, sufficiently, and prior to the execution of the insurance contract of the policy’s general terms and conditions, including its coverages, exclusions, and warranties. Likewise, the insurance coverages and exclusions must be drafted in a clear, comprehensive, and precise manner.
   
   However, the assessment of whether the information provided to the policyholder was sufficient must be conducted based on the evidentiary record submitted in the proceedings.
    
2. Scope of article 1046 of the Colombian commercial code
   The CSJ recalled that Article 1046 of the Colombian Commercial Code imposes on the insurer the obligation to deliver the policy to the policyholder within fifteen (15) days following the execution of the insurance contract. However, such requirement serves an exclusively evidentiary purpose, insofar as the insurance contract is consensual in nature.
   
   Accordingly, the absence of the policyholder’s signature on the general terms and conditions, or any dispute regarding the physical delivery of the policy, does not, in and of itself, render the insurance contract invalid nor automatically preclude the enforceability of its clauses.
    
3. Evidence of breach of the duty of disclosure
   The CSJ upheld the reasoning of the lower courts, finding that: (i) it had been established that the policyholder was aware of and accepted the general and specific policy conditions, as evidenced by a document signed to that effect; (ii) such document expressly referred to the applicable policy wording and stated that it was attached; and (iii) the exclusion for spontaneous combustion was included within those conditions.
   
   The claimant failed to contradict this documentary evidence. Its sole support consisted of the testimony of its legal representative during party examination, without any additional evidence demonstrating either the failure to deliver the general or specific terms and conditions or that the relevant exclusion was unclear or ambiguous.
   
   Accordingly, the CSJ concluded that the lower courts’ decisions were neither arbitrary nor unfounded, but rather the result of a reasoned assessment of the evidence, which was not subject to review in tutela proceedings.