MEXICO Law and Practice Contributed by: Carlos de la Garza, Raúl Acosta and Enrique Tamez, De la Garza & Acosta Abogados, S.C.
4.6 Late Payment and Claims Handling Practices Late Payment Mexican law imposes significant financial conse- quences for late payment of insurance claims. Under Article 71 of the LCS, the insurer’s payment obligation becomes due 30 days after it receives the documents and information necessary to determine the basis of the claim. Failure to pay within the applicable period triggers the statutory indemnity for delay under Article 276 of the LISF. For obligations denominated in Mexican pesos, the statutory regime combines inflation adjustment through investment units (UDIs) with default inter- est. Interest accrues daily and is capitalised monthly, meaning that financial exposure may become sub- stantial in prolonged disputes. The Supreme Court has expressly upheld the constitutionality of this capi- talisation mechanism, noting its compensatory and deterrent purposes. A significant 2026 precedent further clarified that, in direct actions brought by third-party victims against liability insurers, where the insurer first receives the information necessary to assess the claim through judicial proceedings, service of process triggers the 30-day statutory period, after which the statutory indemnity for late payment may begin to accrue. Increased Scrutiny of Claims Handling Claims handling is also attracting greater scrutiny, par- ticularly as to whether denials are adequately sup- ported and applicable policy conditions were properly delivered. Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence recognising possible moral and, exceptionally, punitive damages in certain insurance disputes further reinforces the importance of timely, technically supported and prop- erly documented claims decisions. 4.7 ESG and Climate-Related Coverage Climate-Related Risks ESG and climate-related issues are not yet a major standalone source of coverage litigation in Mexico. Climate-related losses are nevertheless relevant in property and catastrophe insurance, where disputes
may involve causation, business interruption, deducti- bles, sub-limits, aggregation and valuation. Environmental liability may also raise issues concern- ing pollution exclusions and the distinction between sudden and gradual contamination. Insurer Response Climate exposure is increasingly relevant to underwrit- ing, limits, deductibles, exclusions and reinsurance strategy. ESG considerations currently have a greater regulatory and underwriting impact than a litigation impact. Large losses also reinforce the importance of robust claims adjustment, particularly for business interrup- tion and loss-of-profit claims requiring careful scrutiny of causation and quantum. 4.8 Delegated Authority and Claims Responsibility Authority and Attribution Delegation of underwriting, distribution or claims- related functions can create disputes as to the scope of the intermediary’s authority and whether its acts or representations are attributable to the insurer. Mexican law recognises that insurance agents may perform acts ordinarily associated with their role or habitually carried out with the insurer’s authorisation, although special authority is required to modify gen- eral policy conditions. These issues may become particularly important where an intermediary was responsible for deliver- ing policy documentation, communicating coverage terms or making representations concerning the scope of insurance. Disputes may therefore concern not only what the policy provides, but also what authority the intermediary actually possessed and what conduct may legally be attributed to the insurer. Claims Handling and Liability Insurers may outsource operational functions, but delegation does not relieve them of their statutory and regulatory obligations. This is particularly clear in claims adjustment: insurers are responsible for the performance of adjusters they appoint, and an indem-
183 I NSURANCE L I T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook