SUSEP proposes new rules for the accreditation of arbitrators, arbitration chambers, and mediators for disputes involving insurance contracts, as well as for the disclosure of decisions

The Superintendence of Private Insurance (“SUSEP”) has proposed new rules for the accreditation of those responsible for alternative dispute resolution involving insurance contracts, as well as for the submission and disclosure of information on disputes resolved through these mechanisms. The proposal was submitted for market input through Public Consultation Notice No. 10/2026 and consists of a draft resolution intended to regulate the sole paragraph of Article 129 of Law No. 15,040/2024.

Article 129 of Law No. 15,040/2024 allows the parties to agree to resolve disputes through alternative means (including arbitration) by means of a signed instrument, provided that the procedure is conducted in Brazil and is governed by Brazilian law. Its sole paragraph assigns to SUSEP the responsibility for regulating the mandatory disclosure of disputes and their respective decisions, without identifying individuals, in a repository that is easily accessible to interested parties.

This is the second public consultation on this matter. An initial version of the regulation was submitted for Public Consultation No. 13/2025 for a period of 15 days and received 72 comments, of which 15 were accepted in full and 14 were accepted in part. According to the explanatory memorandum, the new round is justified by the substantial changes made since then, notably the adoption of the system for prior accreditation of those responsible for conducting the procedures, the establishment of new obligations and sanctions for participants in this ecosystem, and the expansion of the information to be reported to SUSEP.

Review the key points of the draft:

• Scope of the new regulation: The draft covers disputes arising from insurance contracts that are resolved through arbitration, mediation, conciliation, or other alternative methods provided for by law, conducted either by specialized entities or by individuals acting as independent professionals. The proposal therefore covers arbitration chambers, mediation or conciliation centers and institutes, sole arbitrators, and members of arbitral tribunals. Reinsurance and retrocession contracts, however, are excluded from its scope of application.

This is the first point in the draft that merits consideration. The sole paragraph of Article 129 of Law No. 15,040/2024 provides that “the supervisory authority will regulate the mandatory disclosure of disputes and the corresponding decisions,” seemingly limiting the mandatory disclosure requirement to arbitration alone, since it is only in arbitration that there is, in fact, a decision rendered by a third party. Mediation and conciliation, on the other hand, may result in an agreement between the parties, but never in a decision that resolves the dispute. By extending the obligations to mediation and conciliation, such as the obligation to disclose a summary of the agreement executed, the regulation under public consultation exceeds the authority delegated by Law No. 15,040/2024.

• Prior accreditation with SUSEP: The core of the new model is the requirement that alternative dispute resolution procedures for insurance disputes be conducted exclusively by entities or individuals previously accredited with SUSEP. The restriction must be included in the proposals, policies, contractual terms, or their respective amendments, without prejudice to the requirements for the validity and effectiveness of the arbitration agreement established in Law No. 9,307/1996.

Although SUSEP describes accreditation as voluntary for interested chambers and professionals, the contractual requirement to use only accredited agents tends to have significant effects. In practice, entities and professionals who do not join the system will no longer be eligible to conduct procedures related to insurance contracts subject to the new regulations.

At this point, it is worth considering whether the requirement of prior accreditation, especially for individual professionals, ultimately introduces a limitation that is not supported by Law No. 9,307/1996. Article 13 of the Arbitration Law states that “any person who is legally competent and enjoys the trust of the parties may serve as an arbitrator,” prioritizing party autonomy in the choice of the adjudicator. In an insurance contract, which is essentially multidisciplinary in nature, resolving a dispute may require specialized knowledge (technical, actuarial, engineering, or sector-specific), and limiting the pool to a pre-accredited list can narrow the parties’ options precisely in disputes where particular expertise would be most relevant.

It should also be questioned whether prior accreditation is included in the authority conferred by the sole paragraph of Article 129 of Law No. 15,040/2024, which assigns to SUSEP only the regulation of the disclosure of “conflicts and the respective decisions,” without mentioning the qualification of those who conduct the procedures.

• Electronic accreditation process: Individuals and entities must complete the accreditation process through a designated electronic system by providing registration information, submitting the required documentation, and signing a commitment agreement along with the necessary declarations. Individuals must access the system through their gov.br account. For entities, accreditation must be carried out by a representative with duly proven authority, who will be responsible for handling registration matters with SUSEP.

Accreditation will only be considered valid once all information has been fully completed, the applicable documentation has been submitted, and the required documents have been electronically signed. Automatic processing by the system will not preclude SUSEP from subsequently verifying the correctness of the information and documents submitted. SUSEP must publish and keep updated, on its website, the list of accredited individuals and entities.

The accreditation process also merits consideration. By requiring individuals to access the system through a gov.br account, as provided for in Paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the draft, the proposal may discourage, or even present a practical obstacle to, the accreditation of foreign arbitrators, who generally do not have such an account.

• Obligations undertaken by accredited parties: As a condition for accreditation, entities and individuals must undertake to submit an anonymized summary of the dispute to SUSEP within 120 days of the final resolution of the dispute. They must also anonymize the data in accordance with the General Personal Data Protection Law (“LGPD”), keep registration information up to date, cooperate with SUSEP’s inquiries, and ensure that the summaries reflect the main legal issues and the reasons for the decision, without omitting elements essential to understanding the dispute.
• Content of the information submitted to SUSEP: The draft sets out a standardized template for reporting disputes. The form must include the identification of the entity or individual responsible for the procedure; descriptive details of the insurance contract and the dispute resolution agreement, without identifying the parties; a summary of the claims and arguments of the insurer or cooperative; a summary of the claims and arguments of the counterparty; the key legal issues; the factual, evidentiary, and legal grounds for the decision; and a concluding summary of the decision or agreement, including its main obligations, acknowledgments, or effects.

The inclusion of settlements in this report also warrants consideration. First, the sole paragraph of Article 129 of Law No. 15,040/2024 appears to be aimed at establishing a repository of precedents that can guide the market and policyholders – a purpose for which settlements are not intended, as they do not establish legal principles or interpretations. In addition, the terms of a settlement reflect mutual concessions and case-specific elements of negotiation, the disclosure of which does not appear to serve a legitimate interest of third parties and may even discourage future settlements. Finally, Law No. 13,140/2015 explicitly establishes the confidentiality of mediation, which counsels caution when requiring the disclosure, even in anonymized form, of agreements reached through mediation.

• Mandatory disclosure required under the alternative dispute resolution agreement: The obligation to disclose information about disputes and the decisions or agreements reached must be set out in the alternative dispute resolution agreement. The explanatory memorandum links this requirement to the parties’ contractual awareness and to reconciling the legal duty of disclosure with the protection of personal data and private autonomy.
• Responsibility for reporting: The responsibility for submitting the information will lie with the individual or the accredited entity conducting the procedure. In proceedings administered by an arbitral tribunal, the report must be submitted by the presiding arbitrator or, in the case of a sole arbitrator, by the arbitrator themselves. The arbitral institution responsible for administering the procedure may also submit the information.
• Deadlines for submission and disclosure: The information must be submitted electronically to SUSEP via the External User Module of the Electronic Information System (“SEI”) within 120 days of the resolution of the dispute. Upon receipt, SUSEP must publish the content on its website within 30 days.

The amendment aims to accommodate the 90-day period established in the Arbitration Law for filing an action to set aside an arbitral award, thereby allowing disclosure to take place after the statutory period for judicial challenge has elapsed.

• Insurers’ duty to monitor: In addition to the responsibility assigned to the accredited party, the draft stipulates that insurance companies and insurance cooperatives must take steps to verify that the information has indeed been submitted to SUSEP. In cases of co-insurance, this responsibility will fall to the lead co-insurer. The explanatory memorandum views this obligation as a second layer of control and indicates that monitoring of reports should be integrated into the compliance routines of the regulated entities.

It is worth noting, however, that insurance companies and cooperatives have no control over the actions of arbitrators, mediators, and arbitration chambers. It would be desirable for the final regulation to clarify the scope of these verification “measures,” so as to prevent the supervised entity from being held liable for omissions by third parties over which it has no control.

• Suspension and de-accreditation: SUSEP may temporarily suspend accreditation due to non-compliance with registration requirements or the need to update, correct, or supplement information and documents. The accredited party must be notified to rectify the situation within 15 days, and suspension may be imposed if the outstanding issue is not resolved. Submitting false or inaccurate information may lead to permanent de-accreditation, depending on the severity of the violation and whether it is repeated, following an administrative proceeding that ensures the right to be heard and a full defense.
• Temporal application: the proposal establishes that the future resolution will apply exclusively to insurance contracts entered into after its effective date, including their renewals. The explanatory memorandum clarifies that this wording aims to preclude interpretations that would lead to the retroactive application of the new obligations.

Conversely, the draft establishes that it will take effect on the date of publication, with no transition period. Given that new policies and renewals are already expected to include restrictions on accredited parties, an adaptation period would allow chambers and professionals to complete the accreditation process and insurers to review their contractual terms.

Deadline and participation in the public consultation

Interested parties may submit contributions until October 29, 2026, exclusively through SUSEP’s Public Consultation System. Submissions sent through other channels will not be considered.

Visit SUSEP’s webpage for public consultations and hearings

Demarest’s Insurance, Reinsurance, Private Pension, and Supplementary Health team remains available to assist with reviewing the draft, preparing submissions for the public consultation, examining dispute resolution clauses, and assessing the potential impacts of the proposal on contracts, products, and internal procedures.