La Bienfaisance meeting at GTLawyers headquarters

The United States has “15 U.S. Code Chapter 20,” England has the “Insurance Act 2015,” and France has the “Code des assurances.” Following the international trend, Brazil consolidated insurance regulation into its own legislation. On December 9, 2024, Law No. 15,040—known as the “Insurance Legal Framework”—was enacted, repealing provisions of the 2002 Civil Code and introducing new rules for the sector.

Although innovative, this legislation emerges in a robust insurance market. In February 2025, the Superintendência de Seguros Privados (Susep) released a report showing that in 2024, revenues from the insurance, pension, and capitalization segments totaled BRL 435.56 billion, representing 12.2% growth over the previous year. So what actually changes under the new framework?

The 2002 Civil Code addressed the topic in just 46 articles—45 devoted to contractual matters and one to limitation periods. The new Legal Framework significantly expands this body of law to 134 articles, replacing outdated provisions and introducing relevant innovations. Given this broad scope, some key changes stand out.

Contract interpretation: new protection for the policyholder

For the first time, Brazilian legislation sets objective rules for interpreting insurance contracts, aiming to ensure greater transparency. Market expansion presupposes that contractual instruments are accessible and understandable to the public. From now on, risks and interests must be described “clearly and unequivocally,” and the wording most favorable to the insured prevails in the event of discrepancies between the policy, contract template, or technical notes (Art. 9, paragraphs 1 and 2). In addition, advertising materials and pre‑contractual instruments must also be construed in favor of the insured (Art. 57).

Notification of risk aggravation: reinforced duty

Article 14 of the new framework details the policyholder’s obligation to immediately notify the insurer of any substantial aggravation of risk. The policyholder must therefore notify the insurer in a timely manner, reinforcing an already existing duty. The insurer’s decision period has been extended to 20 days, allowing it to demand an additional premium or rescind the contract if the increased risk cannot be covered. If rescission occurs, it must take place within 30 days, and the insurer may proportionally retain costs when refunding the premium.

The Civil Code already required such notification, with loss of coverage in cases of bad faith. Now, the new framework toughens the consequences: willful omission may lead not only to loss of coverage but also to an obligation to pay the premium and reimburse expenses. It also provides for specific effects in cases of negligent omission, to be shaped by case law.

Policyholder’s conduct in the event of a claim: “duty to mitigate the loss”

The new Legal Framework, in Article 66, updates the behavior expected from the policyholder when faced with a covered event. From the moment the claim or its imminence becomes known, the policyholder must promptly notify the insurer by any suitable means and take all necessary measures to avoid or minimize losses, thereby enshrining in Brazil the international principle known as the “duty to mitigate the loss.”

The policyholder must also provide all available information about the claim, its causes, and consequences whenever asked. Willful noncompliance with these obligations—i.e., with intent to harm or to omit relevant information—results in total forfeiture of the right to indemnity or the insured capital, without prejudice to premium collection and reimbursement of expenses borne by the insurer. If the noncompliance is merely negligent, the policyholder loses the right to indemnity only to the extent of the losses caused by the omission.

The legislation also provides mitigating factors: if the insurer proves it learned in a timely manner of the claim or relevant information through other means, even without formal notice from the policyholder, sanctions may be set aside. It is important to note that the beneficiary is also subject to these obligations and penalties when an interested party.

Claims adjustment and settlement: speed and transparency

As to claim handling, management and settlement remain the exclusive responsibility of the insurer, which may appoint its own adjuster without delegating the final decision. Articles 76 and 77 recommend performing the adjustment and settlement phases simultaneously when possible, to speed up the process. The resulting report becomes a document shared by both parties, and in the event of a coverage denial, all documents supporting the insurer’s decision must be made available to the interested party. The response period is 30 days, extendable in complex cases up to 120 days.

Time limits for asserting rights

The new framework also innovates in the time limits for asserting rights related to the insurance contract. Article 126(I) sets, as a rule, a one‑year period from awareness of the triggering event for insurers to collect premiums, for intermediaries to adjust remuneration, and for claims between insurers and reinsurers. The insured also has one year to claim indemnity or a refund of the premium, counted from receipt of the formal denial. For beneficiaries and injured third parties, the period is three years from awareness of the triggering event to assert their rights against the insurer.

The adjustments introduced by the Insurance Legal Framework represent a significant restructuring, enhancing transparency, speed, and legal certainty in the sector. With its 134 articles, the law marks a shift toward regulatory consolidation and alignment with practices in more mature markets, preparing Brazil for a new landscape in the insurance segment.

Finally, note that although enacted in December 2024, Law No. 15,040 is not yet fully in force. The sector is undergoing a transition period, with application expected to begin in December 2025. Until then, insurers, consumers, and regulators are adapting and watching how the new rules will be interpreted and implemented, as the market prepares for this new regulatory framework.

GTLawyers – Tax Team

The Federal Supreme Court (“STF”) denied the Extraordinary Appeal filed by the State of São Paulo against the Court of Justice decision that excluded the levy of the Tax on Causa Mortis Transfers and Donations (“ITCMD”) on donations originating from abroad. The single-judge decision by Justice Cármen Lúcia, issued on June 14, 2025 in RE 1.553.620, reaffirms the understanding that the advent of Constitutional Amendment No. 132/2023 does not automatically validate the collection of the state tax in the absence of a valid state law.

The case concerned the receipt of donations from abroad by a donee residing in the State of São Paulo. The State Treasury argued that Article 16 of CA 132/2023 had overridden the need for a federal supplementary law governing that taxable situation, thereby allowing the immediate collection of ITCMD on donations from abroad made after the constitutional amendment entered into force.

This argument was expressly rejected by Justice Cármen Lúcia. The decision clarifies that CA 132/2023 establishes a transitional competence only until the enactment of the supplementary law required by Article 155, paragraph 1, item III, of the Federal Constitution, but it neither dispenses with that requirement nor validates state legislation declared unconstitutional.

In São Paulo’s case, the situation is aggravated by the declaration of unconstitutionality of Article 4 of Law No. 10,705/2000, issued both by the São Paulo Court of Justice (in 2011) and by the STF (ADI No. 6,830/SP). That provision, which dealt with the taxation of donations with an international connecting factor, remains without effect and cannot serve as a basis for levying ITCMD.

Practically speaking, in the absence of a valid provision in São Paulo’s legislation enacted after CA 132/2023, donations received from abroad remain outside the scope of ITCMD.

Complementary Bill No. 108/2024, currently pending in the National Congress, seeks to fill this regulatory gap. Even so, even after its possible approval, a new state statute will still be required.

The decision directly affects taxpayers engaged in international estate and succession planning, consolidating the impossibility of charging ITCMD on donations originating from abroad.

For further information on the subject, we remain at your disposal.