Susep launches public consultation on disclosure of conflicts resolved by mediation, arbitration and other alternative methods in insurance contracts

On December 8, 2025, the Superintendence of Private Insurance (“Susep”) published Public Consultation No. 13/2025, which presents a draft resolution aimed at regulating the sole paragraph of article 129 of Law No. 15,040/2024 — the new legal framework for insurance contracts — establishing the rules for mandatory submission and disclosure, in a public repository, of information relating to disputes resolved by alternative means of dispute resolution (mediation, arbitration and other methods recognised as such).

According to the explanatory memorandum, the creation of a public repository of decisions and agreements resulting from alternative dispute resolution (ADRs) methods seeks not only to publicize and standardize the information, but also to foster the development of a legal culture specialized in insurance, subsidizing studies, statistical data and future public policies.

The draft resolution applies to conflict resolutions carried out by mediation, arbitration or any other alternative method, whether through institutional chambers or independent professionals.

At this point, the regulatory option to extend the duty of disclosure to all alternative methods of dispute resolution indiscriminately seems inadequate.  The sole paragraph of article 129 of Law No. 15,040/2024 refers to the disclosure of “conflicts and respective decisions”. Under a systematic reading, this expression seems to be primarily directed toward arbitration, since only this method technically results in decisions per se. The extension of the informational duty to consensual methods, such as mediations, which do not produce decisions and whose effectiveness is directly associated with confidentiality, may generate misalignment with the specific legislation that governs these institutes and, in practice, discourage their use in the insurance market. Therefore, we understand that only arbitral awards should be subject to the duty of disclosure.

The obligation to disclose must be included in the dispute resolution agreement itself, as an arbitration clause, arbitration agreement or equivalent document. This is a responsibility that the draft resolution imposes on the chamber responsible for the procedure. The attribution of the duty of disclosure to the chambers also raises relevant concerns, given that such entities are not supervised by Susep, but are now subject to regulatory obligations and potential  administrative sanctions.

The information must be submitted electronically to SUSEP via the SEI External User Module within 30 days after the conflict is resolved. SUSEP, in turn, will publish this information in its own repository within 30 days of receipt.

The setting of this deadline is another point of attention, since in the case of arbitration, the arbitral award is subject to an annulment action within 90 days. The requirement of disclosure prior to the minimum stabilization of the decision may generate legal uncertainty and informational asymmetry, exposing controversies that are still subject to judicial questioning. In our view, adopting a deadline more compatible with the legal regime of arbitration, or linking the disclosure to the rendering of the final award and the expiration of the deadline for the annulment action, would contribute to greater normative coherence.

In order to ensure confidentiality, the rule establishes that the information sent may not allow the identification of the parties involved or contain confidential data, and it is up to the responsible chamber to carry out the necessary anonymization. The submission must follow the standardized format provided for in the Annex of the draft, which requires the summary presentation of essential points:

• Identification of the chamber responsible for the dispute resolution process
• Group and main insurance branch involved
• Resolution method used
• Brief presentation of the arguments of the party and the counterparty;
• Summary list of evidence produced
• Summary of the decision or agreement concluded.

Despite such concern regarding the protection of confidentiality, the information required in the Annex must also be discussed. The requirement of exposition, even if synthetic, of the arguments of the parties and the list of evidence produced may go beyond the legal competence, which is limited to authorizing the disclosure of conflicts and the respective decisions “without particular identification”. In complex insurance disputes or those with widespread economic or media repercussion, the combination of these elements can indirectly enable the reidentification of the parties, in addition to exposing legal strategies and sensitive information.

Additionally, the draft imposes on insurers and individual insurance cooperatives the duty to monitor the chambers’ compliance with the obligation to submit – a responsibility that, in cases of coinsurance, will be the responsibility of the leading co-insurer. Such provision creates an unclear and potentially onerous chain of responsibilities for the regulated entities, without them having effective control over the chambers’ compliance with the obligation.

Interested parties can submit contributions to Public Consultation No. 13/2025 by December 24, 2025, according to the guidelines of the notice.

Demarest’s Insurance, Reinsurance, Private Pension and Supplementary Health team  will monitor and actively participate in the public consultation and will remain available to provide any necessary clarifications.