The One-Year Statute of Limitations Applies to Consumer Insurance Contract Disputes

On July 30, 2024, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires (SCBA) upheld the ruling previously issued by the Court of Appeals of the La Plata Judicial Department in the case "Toscano, Jorge Luis v. Caja de Seguros S.A. regarding damages for contractual breach," declaring that the right to file the lawsuit for damages arising from the breach of an insurance contract was time-barred.

The plaintiff had filed a lawsuit against La Caja de Seguros SA for damages resulting from the contractual breach, claiming payment of the sum insured under a life and disability insurance policy, as well as compensation for moral and punitive damages.

The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision, which had applied the one-year statute of limitation provided in article 58 of the Insurance Law and, consequently, determined that the right to file the lawsuit had expired.

In its conclusion, the Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the Civil and Commercial Code regulation on statute of limitations is a minimum level of protection for consumers, and that applying a shorter statute of limitations than the general one provided by the Civil and Commercial Code implies a regression of their rights.

The Court further explained that after the amendment Law 26994 introduced to the Consumer Protection Law, the legal framework no longer provided a dual regulatory framework: one applicable to consumers and another to non-consumers for claims arising from insurance contracts.

The Court also quoted other precedents, including "Buffoni," issued by the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice, which held that the statute of limitations in Insurance Law prevails over the generic period established in the Civil and Commercial Code or the one included in the Consumer Protection Law because the Insurance Law is a special legal regime that cannot be modified by subsequent general laws.

The SCBA dismissed the extraordinary appeal and confirmed that the applicable statute of limitations for the claim was the one established in the Insurance Law. Like the Court of Appeals, the it emphasized that article 58 of the Insurance Law remains in force, and that its precedence is based on the principle "lex specialis derogat legi generali," which holds that a specific rule takes precedence over a general one when there is specific regulation for a particular type of contract, as is the case with insurance. In this regard, the Court highlighted that the Civil and Commercial Code itself establishes in articles 2532 and 2560 the precedence of specific rules over general ones.

The Court also pointed out that consumer protection does not justify displacing the specific rule in this case, as there is no regulatory conflict requiring recourse to the protective principle in favor of the consumer.

The SCBA also rejected the argument that, by repealing article 50 of the Consumer Protection Law, the legislature intended for lawsuits arising from consumer rights to be governed by the generic period in article 2560 of the Civil and Commercial Code, given that the legislature itself kept article 58 of the Insurance Law in force "without it being presumed that such a decision was the result of oversight or lack of foresight."

Finally, the court emphasized the importance of legal certainty in applying statute of limitations. It argued that the existence of shorter periods in the Insurance Law exist because of a need to ensure stability in contractual relations and avoid the indefinite existence of uncertain legal situations that could negatively affect the insurance industry.

In sum, the SCBA determined that the plaintiff’s right to file the civil lawsuit had expired since the one-year statute of limitations established in the Insurance Law was over.