In a ruling already being hailed as a turning point in insurance jurisprudence, Newsom Legal’s senior associates secured a favorable judgment in a case between an insured party and the international insurer EuroShield S.A., following a lengthy dispute over a denied payout.
The case, heard in the 8th Civil Court, set a precedent regarding the interpretation of ambiguous clauses in insurance policies—particularly in corporate property coverage contracts.
The Case: Payment Denial After Industrial Incident
The dispute arose in 2023, when AlfaPacking S.A., a food packaging company, suffered a fire at its plant in Querétaro. Despite holding a comprehensive coverage policy, EuroShield refused to pay the claim, citing an alleged exclusion due to “non-optimal storage conditions.”
The insurer argued that the incident fell outside of the policy coverage based on a technical interpretation of the contract, referring to a post-event inspection.
However, the affected company claimed that the contract did not clearly define what constituted “optimal conditions,” and that the plant had passed several risk inspections without any observations. At that point, they turned to Newsom Legal for assistance, and the case was taken on by the firm’s experienced litigation team.
The Defense: Contractual Ambiguity and the Duty of Clarity
The Newsom Legal team based its strategy on proving that the clause invoked by the insurer was ambiguous, and therefore had to be interpreted in favor of the insured, in accordance with the contra proferentem principle outlined in Article 1851 of the Federal Civil Code.
During the proceedings, the team submitted independent expert reports, regulatory compliance audits, and technical testimonies confirming that there was neither negligence nor any breach on the part of AlfaPacking.
The Ruling and Its Impact
The court ruled in favor of AlfaPacking, ordering EuroShield to pay 75 million pesos in total compensation, in addition to interest and legal costs. The judge held that the contract’s wording left room for interpretation, and that the insurer had failed in its duty to clearly and precisely explain the scope of the coverage.
The judgment also included a recommendation to the National Insurance and Bonding Commission to review industry-wide contracting practices to ensure greater clarity in offered policies.
Implications for the Insurance Market
Insurance law experts agree that this ruling could pave the way for new claims in similar cases and put pressure on insurers to review their contracts more rigorously.
Newsom Legal’s Rise in Specialized Litigation
With this victory, Newsom Legal solidifies its role as a key player in specialized litigation. The firm’s career includes landmark cases in civil liability, contract enforcement, and disputes within regulated sectors. Its technical and methodical approach has positioned the team as one of the most solid in the fields of insurance and corporate risk.