1. What is the current legal landscape regarding insurance litigation in your jurisdiction?

The litigation landscape in Mexico has been affected by several factors. The first and most recent of these is the Judicial Reform, which determined that judges, magistrates, and ministers in Mexico will be elected by popular vote. The requirements to become a judge, magistrate, or minister are very basic, so there is a risk that the people who can attain these positions may not be fully qualified for them.

Another equally important issue is that, in Mexico, our constitution was reformed in 2011 to include human rights, which is why all our laws must be interpreted under the “pro homine” principle. This has had a significant impact on the insurance sector, creating legal precedents that favour victims and policyholders.

Therefore, the current legal landscape for insurance litigation in Mexico is active, increasingly technical and heavily judicialised, but with a fairly clear structure. Today, these matters rest primarily on four pillars: the Insurance Contract Law, the Insurance and Surety Institutions Law, the Financial Services User Protection and Defence Law, and the Commercial Code. In procedural terms, the general rule is that commercial disputes are heard in commercial oral proceedings, since Article 1390 Bis of the Commercial Code provides that all commercial disputes, regardless of the amount involved, are to be heard in such proceedings.

In other words, insurance litigation in Mexico can no longer be viewed solely as a classic contractual dispute. It remains, in essence, a commercial dispute arising from the policy, but it is intersected by financial consumer protection rules, regulatory obligations of insurers, and increasingly refined case law on coverage, exclusions, limitation periods, default, and interpretation of clauses. The Financial Services User Protection and Defence Act itself maintains CONDUSEF as the body responsible for protection, conciliation and arbitration, and its current text also reflects recent changes—including references to the Financial Arbitration System and the use of information on claims and unfair terms—confirming that the pre-trial phase continues to carry strategic weight before or in parallel with the trial.

What are the most common causes of litigation today? Mainly: denial of coverage; application of exclusions; disputes over pre-existing conditions, misrepresentation or inaccurate risk disclosure; quantification of compensation; late payment; limitation periods; civil liability insurance with third-party claims; and subrogation/recovery actions once the claim has been paid. Regulatory-wise, these areas of conflict are closely linked to specific rules in the LCS: Article 71 establishes that the insurance claim expires 30 days after the insurer receives the documents and information to assess the basis of the claim; Article 81 establishes, as a general rule, a two-year statute of limitations, except for death coverage in life insurance, where the term is five years; Article 111 regulates the subrogation of the insurer; and Articles 145 and 147 structure civil liability insurance and the direct right of the injured third party.

As for judicial trends, the Supreme Court and collegiate courts have been consolidating a generally demanding line for insurers when they raise technical defences. A very relevant criterion holds that, if payment of the policy is claimed due to the occurrence of a loss, the burden of proof on the insured, contracting party or beneficiary is essentially reduced to proving the contract, the occurrence of the loss and the basic elements of their claim; on the other hand, the facts that prevent, extinguish or exclude coverage tend to fall on the party opposing them. Added to this is another classic and still very influential criterion: in the event of inaccuracies in the policy, its clauses must be interpreted in favour of the insured party. This makes a defence of exclusion that is drafted in an ambiguous, obscure or unclear manner much less effective.

Another very important issue today is insurer default. It is no longer enough to discuss whether or not there was coverage; often, the true economic burden of litigation lies in interest and penalties for late payment. Article 276 of the LISF establishes that if an insurance institution does not comply within the legal deadlines, it must pay the creditor compensation for default. This regime is linked to Article 71 of the LCS, which establishes the moment at which the credit becomes enforceable. In recent years, the Court has continued to litigate and clarify the scope of this regime, confirming that default is now one of the strongest weapons in policy enforcement lawsuits.

In civil liability, the situation is particularly relevant. The LCS stipulates that in this area, the insurer is obliged to pay the compensation that the insured owes to a third party for the damage covered, and Article 147 also recognises that the injured third party has a direct right to compensation and is the beneficiary of the insurance from the moment of the accident. This means that civil liability litigation is no longer limited to a bilateral relationship between the insured and the insurer; it often becomes a triangular dispute involving the victim, the insured and the company, with discussions on the enforceability of exclusions, time limits on coverage and the amount of compensation.

From a practical point of view, conflict in the sector remains significant. CONDUSEF continues to publish information on claims by insurer and by branch, and its 2024 and 2025 reports show that the insurance sector maintains a significant presence in user defence actions; in addition, its “Cuentas Claras” (Clear Accounts) dashboards and reports continue to show differences between institutions in terms of claims, resolution times and sector indices. This does not automatically equate to “legal disputes,” but it is a good indicator of where litigation is brewing: motor, life, medical expenses, and service/coverage claims.

In conclusion, the current legal landscape in Mexico favours more sophisticated insurance litigation that is more oral, more supported by technical evidence, and less tolerant of ambiguous exclusions or unfounded denials of payment. Insurers still have powerful defences, but today they need to document them better; policyholders and beneficiaries, for their part, have better jurisprudential tools to combat restrictive interpretations, enforce default and challenge unclear exclusions. As a result, the focus of litigation is no longer solely on “whether there is a policy,” but on how the claim is proven, who bears the burden of exceptions, when the statute of limitations runs, and how much the delay in payment costs.

2. What three essential pieces of advice would you give to clients involved in insurance litigation?

These tips are aimed at insurers and reinsurers in general:

a. Every incident is a potential risk of litigation. Therefore, every incident must be prepared and documented as diligently as possible. Within that due diligence, the human rights of the individuals involved must be protected, where applicable.

b. Denying payment for a claim must be because the insurer has sufficient grounds to uphold the declination of liability, which it can sustain in court.

c. Litigation should be a last resort. If there is the possibility of an alternative means of dispute resolution, such as arbitration or mediation, it is recommended that this be exhausted before resorting to litigation.

3. What are the biggest threats and opportunities in insurance disputes over the next 12 months?

Over the next 12 months, insurance disputes in Mexico will likely face an environment of greater economic and evidentiary pressure, but also better litigation positioning for those who document the case well from the outset. This projection is based on three current factors: the accident rate in the sector remains high, with visible increases in several branches; catastrophic risks and civil liability are growing within damages; and recent case law maintains a line that narrows the margin for poorly substantiated coverage denials. In addition, medical expense insurance premiums have risen considerably, so a significant number of lawsuits related to this issue are expected this year.

Major threats:

a) More litigation due to catastrophic events and insufficient coverage.

The clearest pressure comes from the climate front. The CNSF reported strong growth in Catastrophic Risks (+56.7%) and Civil Liability (+14.9%) within non-motor damage for Q1 2025. At the same time, AMIS reported that, in the period 2012–2024, the industry paid an average of 7.591 billion pesos per year for hydrometeorological claims, 91% more than in the previous 12 years. Furthermore, in Acapulco, 15% of the insured property affected by Otis did not have hydrometeorological coverage, but only fire and earthquake coverage. This anticipates more lawsuits over coverage scope, underinsurance, interpretation of endorsements, and concurrence of causes of damage.

b) Increased conflict due to response times and payment refusals.

CONDUSEF continues to show that the insurance sector still has a significant volume of complaints and that insurance—especially car insurance and other mass products—continues to be among the most complained about products in its 2025 state and sector reports. This suggests that, in addition to the coverage fund, disputes over delays in ruling, excessive documentation requirements, and compensation refusals will continue to grow. Legally, this increases the risk of penalties for late payment under the LISF regime if the insurer does not pay on time.

c) Judicial hardening in the face of ambiguous exclusions or poorly proven defences.

The most serious procedural threat to insurers is jurisprudential: the Supreme Court and Collegiate Courts maintain the criterion that, when payment of the policy is claimed due to the occurrence of a loss, the insured’s burden is reduced to proving the contract, the loss, and the basic elements of the claim; impediments or exclusions weigh mainly on those who oppose them. In addition, the SCJN has continued to resolve issues of medical expense insurance and clauses/exclusions with a strong focus on contractual justification, clear information, and non-discrimination. In practice, this makes a generic rejection letter or one based on questionnaires, medical forms, or opaque exclusions more vulnerable.

d) Cost pressure on major medical expenses (health).

Medical inflation and economic indicators have severely impacted premiums for major medical insurance, and this year, the Tax Administration Service has established a new criterion whereby 16% of VAT on services paid cannot be transferred, which is why it will now directly impact the cost of the claim, resulting in an additional increase in premiums. We are already beginning to see lawsuits from policyholders who are unhappy with the increase in premiums, and more actions, including class actions, are expected as a result of these increases.

e) Cyber incidents and disputes over policies not designed for that risk.

In 2025, AMIS released a Deloitte industry presentation highlighting the increase and sophistication of incidents such as ransomware, information theft, BEC and transactional fraud, with the warning that AI makes attacks “faster and more efficient”. This points to an emerging focus of litigation: claims for business interruption, fraud, data liability, and exclusions from traditional policies that were not designed for cyber risks. The threat here is not only technical; it is one of wording and coverage framing.

Greater opportunities:

1) Better legal position for the insured/beneficiary when the claim file is well prepared.

The main opportunity for users, policyholders and injured third parties is that the current legal framework allows them to enter into litigation on a more solid footing if they can properly prove the contract, the incident and the claim. The criterion of reduced burden of proof, coupled with the tendency to scrutinise exclusions and rejection letters, makes an early evidence strategy particularly useful: accident report, medical or expert file, chronology of requirements and refusal to pay.

2) More aggressive use of arrears as a bargaining chip and punishment.

The LISF provides for compensation for late payment when the insurer fails to meet the legal deadlines, and the LCS establishes the moment when the insurance claim becomes due once the necessary information has been provided. In a context where claims for response times remain relevant, late payment will continue to be a valuable tool for speeding up settlements, strengthening claims or making delaying tactics more costly.

3) Opportunity for insurers to reduce litigation with more robust contract drafting and technical rejection.

There is also an important opportunity for companies: case law does not eliminate valid exclusions; what it requires is that they be clear, well incorporated into the contract, and properly demonstrated in court. This means that those who invest in better underwriting, consistent questionnaires, serious medical/expert evidence, and individualised rejection letters can reduce legal defeats and improve their position in settlement. This conclusion is an inference based on case law and recent precedents on exclusions and the burden of proof.

4) Greater strategic value in civil liability and direct action by third parties.

Given that the accident rate in civil liability insurance is growing and that the LCS recognises a protective structure for injured third parties in this type of insurance, there will be clear opportunities for more sophisticated litigation involving direct action, reservation of rights, coordinated defence between the insured and the insurer, and recovery/subrogation. In practice, civil liability may be the line of business where the value of an early, trilateral strategy grows the most. The expectation of growth is supported by the increase reported by the CNSF for this line of business.

5) Competitive advantage for those who master commercial oral proceedings.

As commercial disputes are heard in commercial oral proceedings without any limitation on the amount involved, the opportunity is not only substantive but also procedural. Over the next 12 months, those who are best able to adapt to more concentrated, more evidentiary litigation that is less tolerant of improvisation will win more cases. This favours law firms and claims departments that know how to prepare interrogatories, expert reports and case theory from the outset.

4. How do you ensure that your practice maintains high levels of satisfaction among your clients?

Ocampo 1890 is a firm that empowers its clients by providing them with sufficient and timely information about their cases, so that there are no surprises. All decisions made in cases are based on information available to the client at all times, allowing them to analyse all possible scenarios.

Client satisfaction is central to our practice and is approached as a core measure of professional excellence rather than a secondary outcome of legal service delivery. We seek to maintain consistently high levels of client satisfaction through a combination of technical depth, commercial awareness, responsiveness, and close partner involvement throughout every stage of the engagement.

Our approach begins with a thorough understanding of each client’s business, industry dynamics, risk exposure, and strategic priorities. This enables us to provide advice that is not only legally robust, but also commercially sound and tailored to the client’s operational reality. We place particular emphasis on delivering solutions that are clear, practical, and aligned with the client’s broader objectives.

We also consider communication to be a defining element of client experience. For that reason, we prioritise timely responses, transparency in our assessments, and ongoing communication so that clients remain fully informed of developments, risks, alternatives, and recommended courses of action. This level of clarity and accessibility is especially valued in complex or high-stakes matters, where confidence in counsel is essential.

In addition, we believe that strong client relationships are built on consistency, reliability, and trust. Matters are handled with a high degree of care and senior attention, ensuring that clients benefit from both strategic oversight and detail-oriented execution. Our focus is not limited to answering legal questions, but extends to helping clients anticipate challenges, manage exposure, and make informed decisions with confidence.

Ultimately, we view client satisfaction as the product of excellent legal analysis, commercial sensitivity, responsiveness, and long-term commitment to the client relationship. This philosophy has allowed us to build enduring partnerships with our clients, who value our ability to combine specialist expertise with a service model that is attentive, pragmatic, and deeply aligned with their needs.

5. What technological advances are transforming insurance litigation law, and how can clients benefit from them?

Today, it is not so much the essence of insurance litigation in Mexico that is changing, but rather its tools, evidence and operational regulation. The advances that are most significantly changing the landscape are: electronic contracting, digital files and evidence, AI in jurisdictional functions, data analytics/insurtech, and cybersecurity-data protection. For customers, this can translate into better-documented claims, faster processes and better evidence, but also new risks if the policy, digital traceability or data processing is poorly designed.

The first significant change is the digitisation of the insurer-customer relationship. The LISF allows transactions and services to be agreed upon using equipment, electronic means, automated systems, and telecommunications networks. In addition, the CUSF requires institutions to clearly define which transactions can be carried out electronically, how user identification and authentication will work, how transactions will be notified, and how digitally concluded contracts will be cancelled. This transforms litigation because now the dispute no longer revolves solely around “what the policy said,” but rather around what the user accepted, how they authenticated themselves, what they received, when they received it, and what digital trail was left behind. For the customer, when handled properly, this is an advantage: it leaves a trail, making it easier to prove consent, notices, refusals, and response times.

The second advance is the consolidation of digital evidence. Since the reform published on 14 November 2025, the Commercial Code expressly recognises in Article 1061 Bis that in commercial proceedings, information generated or communicated in digital, optical or any other technological media is admissible as evidence, and refers its probative value to the rules of the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure. In insurance litigation, this opens up a lot of scope for using emails, adjustment logs, call records, geolocation, photographs with metadata, portal logs, electronic signatures, chats and accident traces as evidence. For the client, the benefit is clear: more ways to prove the case and less reliance on traditional physical documents.

The third front is digital justice. The Federal Judiciary Council regulates electronic files and the use of videoconferencing for hearings and proceedings; it also allows parties to promote and access electronic files, with authorisation controls, the use of electronic signatures and access logs. In practice, this reduces procedural friction, makes it easier to follow up on cases, and promotes more orderly evidentiary strategies. For a corporate or insurance client with cases in various locations, the benefit is operational and economic: less downtime, better control of the file, and greater responsiveness.

The fourth development, perhaps the most delicate, is the entry of artificial intelligence into the judicial sphere. The Judicial Weekly has already published theses from 2025 and 2026 entitled “Artificial intelligence applied in judicial proceedings”, one on the minimum elements that must be observed for its ethical and responsible use and another that recognises that it can be a valid tool for certain procedural calculations. This does not mean that AI decides for judges, but it does mean that the Mexican judicial system is already beginning to establish criteria for its use. At the same time, the SCJN itself has highlighted in 2025 the need for a regulatory framework in the face of the rapid evolution of AI, and initiatives to regulate it continue to appear in Congress, confirming that the issue is already on the Mexican regulatory agenda. For clients, this can be beneficial in two ways: better strategy preparation and document analysis, and eventually more consistent judicial decisions in auxiliary tasks; but it requires monitoring for biases, errors, and algorithmic opacity.

The fifth significant change is the insurtech and novel models ecosystem. The CNSF maintains a Title 41 in the CUSF for companies authorised to operate novel models linked to the Fintech Law. Although this does not in itself reform litigation, it does push the market towards products and processes with more automation, intensive use of data, digital channels and new subscription or payment models. In addition, the CNSF itself has released analyses on parametric insurance and, in 2025, reported that the Mexican government was considering taking out parametric insurance against excessive rainfall. For customers, this may translate into faster claims and fewer discussions about quantification in certain risks, but also into new litigation over parametric triggers, data quality, and index design.

The sixth major front is cybersecurity and data protection, especially in health, medical expenses and claims involving sensitive data. The Federal Law on Personal Data Protection remains central: it protects personal data held by individuals and requires express written consent, including through electronic signatures or other authentication mechanisms, for the processing of sensitive personal data. It also allows certain exceptions when processing is essential for medical care or to fulfil obligations arising from a legal relationship. In insurance, this is extremely important because more and more claims rely on digitised medical records, biometrics, apps, telematics and databases. The benefit for the customer is that, if the data flow is well governed, there can be better underwriting and more efficient processing; but if it is not, there are risks of nullity, penalties, reputational damage and additional litigation.

From a strategic perspective, customers can benefit from these advances in four very specific ways. First, by preserving the entire digital footprint of the case from day one: policy, clickwrap, OTP, emails, portal, chats, reports, photos, metadata and logs. Second, by auditing whether their contracting and rejection processes truly comply with symmetric identification, authentication, notification, and cancellation. Thirdly, using AI only as supervised support to review files, detect inconsistencies and prepare case theory, never as a substitute for legal judgement. Fourthly, strengthening your data governance, especially when medical or biometric information is involved. This combination is what best converts technology into a real litigation advantage.

My conclusion is that, in insurance, technology is no longer just a matter of commercial innovation: it is now a matter of evidence, procedure and regulation. Those who best digitally document contracts and claims, those who best protect data and those who best understand the value of electronic evidence will have a clear advantage in litigation in the coming years.