Among the most recent updates in insurance and reinsurance law in Colombia, particular attention has been given to a recent ruling by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice dated 6 November 2024. This decision addresses the various types of transport insurance and the insurable interests of carriers.
Background
The case arose after a claim was paid under a transport insurance policy (Insurance 1) covering goods damaged during transit. The insurer, having indemnified the owner, sued two transport companies for reimbursement based on subrogation rights under Colombian Commercial Code Article 1096. The carriers, in turn, sought to invoke a separate transport insurance policy (Insurance 2) to cover the claim.
The lower court held the carriers jointly liable and admitted their claim against Insurance 2. However, the appellate court reversed, finding Insurance 2 did not cover the carriers’ liability. The carriers filed a tutela action (constitutional claim), arguing the appellate court had misinterpreted the transport insurance regulations.
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court of Justice upheld the appellate court’s decision to exclude Insurance 2, providing the following rationale:
1. Nature of Transport Insurance:
Under Article 1124 of the Commercial Code, transport insurance may protect either: (i) goods in transit (real insurance), covering the owner’s interest in the cargo, or (ii) carrier liability (patrimonial insurance), covering the carrier’s responsibility for damages.
The nature of the coverage depends on the contract’s terms.
2. Insurable Interest:
The Court emphasized that a policy covering transported goods exclusively protects the owner’s interest, not the carrier’s liability. Thus, carriers cannot claim liability coverage from such a policy.
3. Contractual Analysis of Insurance 2:
The Court found that Insurance 2 explicitly covered goods owned by third parties and excluded carrier liability. The carrier acted as the policyholder for the benefit of the cargo owner, confirming it was a policy on behalf of a third party.
4. Implications for Liability Claims:
Since Insurance 2 did not cover the carrier’s liability for failing to deliver goods intact, it could not be used to reimburse the insurer of Insurance 1.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court provided a literal and restrictive interpretation of Insurance 2, affirming that transport insurance must be aligned with the specific insurable interest outlined in the policy. The decision reinforces the distinction between cargo coverage and carrier liability insurance in Colombian law.
