INSURANCE AND OPEN SUPPLEMENTARY SOCIAL SECURITY
1) PRIVATE INSURANCE SUPERINTENDENCE - SUSEP STATEMENT No. 206, OF 4/12/2018
Approves SUSEP Regulation Plan for 2018. According to the Statement, the actions provided in the Regulation Plan for 2017 and not yet performed are included in the Plan for 2018. The Statement revokes SUSEP Statements no. 184/2016 and no. 199/2017.
In general, the Plan is very good, with elements that may effectively mean an advancement of the Brazilian regulatory environment.
Among the measures provided in the regulation plan are:
- establishment of new rules for the adoption of an action plan within the ambit of the prudential supervision, which is expected to make the replacement of penalties for action plans viable, as it happened in the past with the internal control rules.
- the institution of administrative sanction proceedings - PAS is not necessary, under the regulation in paragraph 4 –A of art. 2 of Resolution 243, a rule that, perhaps because of the lack of legal certainty, has not been properly applied by SUSEP;
- reevaluation of the compulsory alternation of audit firms and possible maintenance of alternation of the technical teams only. " less bureaucracy to forward the contractual conditions of the insurance plans due to the amendments to SUSEP Circulars no. 256 and 265/2004; and
- establishment of guidelines on the acceptance of risks from abroad by the local reinsurers, a matter that has been discussed in the Commission for Development of the Reinsurance Market, set up by SUSEP; our partner João Marcelo dos Santos serves on that commission.
2) PRECEDENT No. 609 OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – STJ
The 2nd Section of the STJ approved the Precedent no. 609 set by the Court on circumstance of unlawfulness in the denial of insurance coverage: "The denial of insurance coverage under the allegation of pre-existing disease is unlawfulness if tests were not required before the execution of the contract or if the insured's bad faith is evidenced." The Precedent is quite bad.
First, because it does not allow the exclusion derived from pre-existing disease, which would be perfectly possible (see article published by João Marcelo dos Santos and Ana Paula Costa, partner and attorney in Santos Bevilaqua Advogados).
Second, because it reinforces the mistaken understanding that a mere provision of false information by the applicant is not enough for the coverage contracted to be denied.
3) INTER-MINISTRY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF THE RURAL INSURANCE - CGSR RESOLUTION No. 062, OF 3/15/2018
Amends Resolution no. 21, of April 9, 2009, which sets the criteria and procedures for information on losses in rural insurance transactions benefiting from the Subsidy Program for the Rural Insurance Premium.
To view the full article please click here.
To view newsletters, please click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.