On September 14, the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court struck down the directive through which the Financial Market Commission (CMF) required Orsan Seguros to set aside reserves equal to 100% of the amounts claimed under its guarantee policies, according to Diario Financiero. The court ruled that such a requirement can only be established through a general rule.
To understand the dispute, it helps to start with the product. A first-demand guarantee policy works like a backup check: if a company fails to fulfill a contract, the beneficiary claims payment and the insurer must pay immediately. The dispute comes afterward. It is an alternative to a bank guarantee.
These policies are used in public works, government procurement and contracts between private parties. Together with credit insurance, they generate about US$ 265 million a year in premiums, according to the publication.
The underlying conflict concerned accounting. The CMF required the insurer to set aside the full amount claimed on its balance sheet as soon as a claim was reported. Orsan argued that the current rule only requires "the best estimate of the cost of the claim," allowing it to set aside less, taking into account what it recovers later.
Think of it as emergency savings. If you are required to tie up all the money claimed even though you later recover some of it, you have less capital left to continue issuing policies.
Orsan is the insurer founded by the Lama family's financial group in 2017. Its defense was led by Matías Mori, of the law firm MoMag Abogados, and took the case to the final court of appeal.
The dispute originated with a confidential audit that the CMF conducted at the company in 2023. In January 2024, the regulator ordered it to reserve the full amount and restate its financial statements, meaning it had to redo its balance sheets using the new criteria. Orsan challenged the order and obtained a stay that froze the measure. Although it lost in the Court of Appeals in August 2025, it never implemented the measure.
The Konsegur case carried weight in the Supreme Court. In August 2023, that insurer reported that it was setting aside reserves for just 50% of the amounts claimed, without objection from the CMF. At the time, it was managed by an administrator appointed by the regulator itself in January of that year.
For the court, the difference in treatment compared with Orsan was "clear" and "was not justified."
The precedent could help AVLA, which accounts for around a third of the market's guarantee policy premiums. According to the newspaper, the CMF imposed the same requirement on it in 2024, when the company was setting aside reserves of between 65% and 90%, and it lost in the Court of Appeals in July of this year.
There are limits. The Supreme Court did not say that setting aside 100% in reserves was wrong, nor did it change the obligation to pay first and dispute later. On that point, the courts have sided with the CMF, which fined Orsan, AVLA, Aspor and Southbridge for failing to comply.
For companies that take out these policies, the guarantee of immediate payment remains intact. What remains unresolved is how much capital insurers must tie up. Diario Financiero reports that the CMF could now issue a general rule for the entire industry.
