The limitation period for insurance claims under policies predating Law 15.040 continues to follow Precedent 229 (Súmula 229), according to a unanimous decision of the Fourth Panel of the STJ.
The limitation period for insurance claims has returned to the centre of the debate at the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ, Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice). The Fourth Panel, in a unanimous decision, reaffirmed the application of Súmula 229 (binding summary of case law no. 229) to contracts entered into before Law No. 15,040/2024. Accordingly, for such policies, the insurer’s refusal does not mark the beginning of the time limit. We were unable to locate the full text of the decision, and the statements below therefore remain subject to confirmation.
What has changed in the insurance limitation period
In fact, the decision does not create a new rule. It confirms the understanding consolidated in Súmula 229 and sets aside a different reading adopted by the Third Panel in 2022. On that occasion, the Third Panel held that the time limit would only begin to run from the moment the insured became aware of the refusal.
Under the reaffirmed regime, the insured’s claim arises upon the occurrence of the loss. For this reason, the one-year period runs from unequivocal knowledge of the triggering event, pursuant to article 206, paragraph 1, II, of the Civil Code. Subsequently, notice of the loss to the insurer suspends the running of time. Knowledge of the denial terminates the suspension, and the period resumes only for the remaining balance.
For example, if the insured takes four months to give notice of the loss, eight months remain after becoming aware of the refusal. In other words, the insured does not have a full year from the date of the denial.
Who is affected by the insurance limitation period
The impact falls on insureds and insurers with contracts entered into before the new law came into force. Law No. 15,040/2024 took effect on 10 December 2025. Therefore, policies predating that date remain subject to the former rule.
For new contracts, a different rule applies. The new law repealed the provision of the Civil Code on the subject. In its place, article 126, II, sets a one-year period running from knowledge of an express and reasoned refusal. Thus, the interval between the loss and the notice is no longer counted. Súmula 229 accordingly loses its usefulness for new policies.
In addition, article 86 of the new law imposes on the insurer a maximum period of 30 days to issue a position on coverage. If it fails to respond, the insurer may forfeit the right to deny coverage, save for the extension and suspension situations provided for in the law. The refusal must also be express and reasoned. Generic or out-of-time denials may undermine the refusal itself and give rise to a dispute as to when time begins to run.
What to do now
For those managing older contracts, the decision strengthens the limitation defence in court proceedings. On the other hand, the insured must calculate the time limit carefully, since the date of the denial does not restart the count.
- Insurers: review the portfolio predating the new law and identify losses notified late.
- Insurers: retain evidence of the date on which the insured received the denial, under both regimes.
- Insureds and brokers: notify the loss promptly after becoming aware of it, in order to preserve the remaining time.
- All parties: record communications with proof of receipt and a certain date.
In short, the date of knowledge of the refusal is decisive under both the former and the new regime. However, its function changes: previously, it ended the suspension; now, it starts the count.
Time limits and exceptions: the divergence that remains
Although the decision was unanimous, the matter is not yet settled among the panels of the STJ. In 2022, the Third Panel adopted the opposite understanding. In the meantime, the outcome of similar cases may vary depending on the adjudicating body. For this reason, the limitation period for insurance claims under older contracts warrants monitoring until any uniform position is reached.
Open questions also remain. The decision does not address transitional rules for contracts renewed close to the entry into force of the new law, nor pending regulations. These matters require a case-by-case analysis.
The firm is monitoring developments on this subject and considers that the correct calculation of the time limit is the most sensitive aspect of these contracts. See also our monitoring of court decisions commented on by the firm.