STJ decides that insurer must respect arbitral contract clause covered by policy

in case involving maritime transport risk coverage contract, which was inserted by arbitration clause as A means of conflict resolution, the STJ has decided that the arbitral clause present in such a contract requires the insurer. This is because, as the insurer previously analyzed the contract, assessing its risks and the existence of the arbitral clause, it was understood that it eventually accepted the submission of any arbitration disputes.

In this case, the insurer compensated the company impaired for damage suffered by the cargo and later required the transport companies to reimburse the amount. The companies, in turn, claimed that the judiciary could not judge the case, since the arbitration clause provided for in the transport contract should also be applied to the insurer, which assumed the insured's credit.

The Superior Court, upon receiving the allegation of carriers, pointed out that, in general, to assume the obligations of another party in a contract does not mean submission to arbitration, if it is foreseen. However, in this case, the insurer had previously analyzed the contract, and it was understood that it should have evaluated, among the risks, the existence of the compromise clause.

Thus, despite, as a rule, the assumption of obligations of another party in a contract does not mean acceptance regarding the arbitration clause, the unequivocal prior knowledge by the insurer, did not allow to remove the Application of the contractual forecast.

#blog #stj #arbitration #securo #apolice #submission #clausulacompromissaria