This piece delves into a recent ruling by the Colombian Supreme Court (SL015-2025), which addresses the employer’s liability coverage under a civil liability insurance. The case involves the death of a worker on an infrastructure project, where the Court determined that the insurance coverage for employer’s liability under Article 216 of the Colombian Labor Code was valid, despite an exclusion clause in the policy. The ruling clarifies that general exclusions related to work-related accidents and illnesses cannot override specific coverage for employer’s civil liability.
Employer´s liability coverage in civil liability insurance
On January 22, 2025, the Colombian Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter, the “Court”) issued ruling SL015-2025, which addressed a cassation appeal filed by a company against the ruling that held it jointly liable for the death of a worker employed by a consortium handling an infrastructure project.
The employer was the policyholder and insured under an extracontractual civil liability insurance policy, including coverage for employer’s liability, and had called the insurer to guarantee payment.
1. The Dispute:
The central issue in the case was the employer’s responsibility for a work-related accident that led to the death of a worker. The Court examined whether the extracontractual liability insurance policy included coverage for employer’s liability under Article 216 of the Colombian Labor Code (hereinafter, the “CST”). The insurer argued that this coverage was excluded.
2. Lower Courts:
Both the trial and appellate courts found the employer at fault for the worker’s death and ordered compensation to the worker’s family, based on Article 216 of the CST. However, both courts ruled that the insurer was not liable to pay the indemnity, citing a general exclusion clause in the policy which read: “14. Work-related illnesses and accidents.”
3. Supreme Court Ruling:
The Court upheld the employer’s liability but reversed the decision regarding the insurer’s obligation. It ruled that the insurer was liable for the indemnity, based on the following considerations:
1- Inclusion of Coverage:
The Court found that the insurance policy explicitly covered employer’s civil liability under Article 216 of the CST, stating: “The contract of insurance covers indemnities the insured is obligated to pay to its employees according to Article 216 of the CST.”
2- Precedent of Another Employer’s Liability Exclusion:
The Court noted that while a prior decision (CSJ SL2070-2023) had excluded employer’s liability coverage, that case involved a specific exclusion regarding certain diseases, unlike the case at hand, where the exclusion was broad and could not limit an expressly covered risk.
3- Definition of Exclusions in Insurance:
The Court reiterated its position from the CSJ SC491-2023 ruling, stating that exclusions must be specific and transparent, and must comply with the principles of diligence and sufficient information for the policyholder. The exclusion in this case was too generic to exclude the employer’s liability.
4- Exclusion Must Be Specific, Not General:
The Court concluded that the generic exclusion of “work-related illnesses and accidents” could not exclude coverage for the indemnity under the employer’s civil liability, especially since the law clearly defines the scope of work-related accidents and their consequences. It ruled that the insurer must cover the indemnity as the insurance policy explicitly included this risk.
In conclusion, the Court determined that the insurer was liable to pay the indemnity, as the exclusion was too vague to negate coverage for a specifically insured risk.
Lucas Fajardo Gutiérrez | Partner of the Insurance and Reinsurance Team
Luis Alejandro Peña | Associate of the Insurance and Reinsurance Team
