Vehicle Protection Plans: Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice Upholds 90-Business-Day Payment Deadline

This page is a translation of the original Portuguese text, provided for convenience. It deals with Brazilian law. If there is any discrepancy, the Portuguese version prevails. Read the original in Portuguese

The Third Panel of Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice (STJ) held valid a vehicle protection clause that allows up to 90 business days to pay out compensation, because Susep (Brazil’s Superintendence of Private Insurance) has not yet issued a specific rule for this type of contract.

The ruling came in REsp 2.188.764, published on July 27, 2026, with Justice Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva as rapporteur and a unanimous result. The case involved a member of a transportation cooperative in Goiás. After his vehicle was stolen, the member went to court complaining of delayed payment and arguing that, in practice, he had bought auto insurance.

His central request was that Susep’s rules be applied to the contract, which would override the deadline in the document he signed. Before reaching the Superior Court of Justice, the case went through the Santa Catarina State Court of Justice, which had set aside both the Consumer Protection Code and the insurance legislation. The final outcome corrected part of that reasoning and preserved another part.

Vehicle protection and insurance are not the same thing

In traditional insurance, the policyholder pays a premium and transfers the risk to an insurer, a company that is licensed to operate, supervised, and required to maintain technical reserves. When the car is stolen, the insurer pays with its own funds, within public solvency rules. The contract is, by nature, a transfer of risk, and that nature is what brings in the sector’s full regulatory framework.

In mutual property protection, the design is different. There is no transfer of risk to a third party: the members themselves share among them the losses that occur within the group, according to what the contract and the bylaws provide. The association or cooperative manages the cost-sharing. When a vehicle is stolen, the money comes out of the pool formed by the participants’ contributions, not from the coffers of a company that took on the risk in exchange for a premium.

This structure helps explain why the monthly fee tends to be lower and why the payment deadline tends to be longer. Before paying compensation, the entity must investigate the event, close out the cost-sharing for the period, and collect the funds from the group. It is a logic of collective loss-sharing, with its own timeline.

Recognizing the difference does not leave the participant unprotected. Under the position the Superior Court of Justice reaffirmed, the Consumer Protection Code can apply to vehicle protection contracts, because a consumer relationship is defined by what is contracted, not by the legal nature of whoever provides the service. A nonprofit entity that offers property protection to the public remains obligated to give clear information and is forbidden from imposing abusive clauses.

The 90-business-day deadline and the absence of a Susep rule

The underlying question was whether the contractual deadline could be shortened by applying Susep Circular 621/2021, which sets 30 days for paying insurance compensation. The Third Panel said no: the circular governs traditional insurance and does not reach mutual arrangements, which have a different economic structure.

The ruling noted that Complementary Law 213/2025 now subjects mutual property protection operations to Susep’s rules. That subjection, however, is still an empty frame on the point in dispute, since the agency has not issued specific regulations on the contract terms for this type of operation. Without a rule of its own, a rule designed for a different business model cannot simply be imported.

The conclusion was straightforward: until Susep issues a specific rule, what the parties freely agreed to prevails, as long as there is no abusive clause. In the case decided, the deadline appeared in the contract expressly and clearly, which defeated the claim of abuse.

Until Susep issues a specific rule, what the parties freely agreed to prevails, as long as there is no abusive clause.

By the same reasoning, the Panel upheld the clause that excludes lost profits and actual losses from coverage. No statute or regulation prohibited that limitation, and the participant was in a position to know about it before joining. Clear drafting and the absence of a prohibition were the two pillars of the decision.

The detail matters to anyone who uses a vehicle for work. If the contract contains a similar exclusion, a rideshare driver, delivery worker, or truck driver who is left without a vehicle while the claim is being investigated receives nothing for the time the vehicle sits idle. The loss from that downtime stays with the participant, even if compensation for the vehicle is eventually paid.

What changes in practice

For those who already have a vehicle protection contract, the deadline written in the document is the deadline that counts. Demanding payment within 30 days based on a Susep rule aimed at insurers is no longer a useful argument until specific regulations exist. What matters is the contract you signed, counted in business days when that is the criterion it adopts.

Ninety business days come to roughly four and a half calendar months, because Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays are left out of the count. If you depend on the money to buy another vehicle, you need to build that interval into your financial planning and avoid confusing the marketing promise of speed with the text of the clause.

If you are thinking of signing up, two clauses deserve a close reading before you sign: the payment deadline and the coverage exclusions. Check whether the deadline runs in business days or calendar days, what event starts the clock (delivery of documents, completion of the internal investigation, a board decision), and exactly what falls outside coverage, such as lost profits, actual losses, a substitute car, and transportation expenses.

The care consumers take in identifying abusive clauses and charges in financing contracts is the same care a vehicle protection contract demands, because in both cases the imbalance comes from a standardized text, drafted by one party and accepted by adhesion. The validity the court recognized extends to a clause that is clear and disclosed, not one that is buried or presented only after the contract is signed.

Nor is the decision a free pass for the entity. The stated deadline must be met, and missing it puts the entity in default, with the right to inflation adjustment, interest and, depending on the specific case, compensation for the inconvenience suffered. Refusing payment without cause, repeatedly demanding documents already delivered, and artificially restarting the count remain questionable conduct.

If you believe you have been wronged, gather evidence before you complain: a copy of the contract and bylaws, proof of monthly payments, the claim notification protocol number, a list of the documents delivered, and the dates of each step. With that material organized, the path starts with the association’s own internal channel and can move on to a complaint with Procon (Brazil’s consumer protection agency) and other consumer protection bodies, which often mediate a solution before any lawsuit.

When it comes to choosing, comparing vehicle protection with traditional insurance is no longer just a matter of the monthly price. The waiting time for compensation, whether there is coverage for indirect losses, the oversight structure behind each model, and how easy it is to hold the entity accountable when something goes wrong all enter the calculation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why doesn’t vehicle protection follow the 30-day insurance deadline?

Because the 30-day deadline comes from Susep Circular 621/2021, issued for traditional insurance, in which an insurer takes on the risk in exchange for a premium. In mutual property protection, the members themselves share the losses among them, and although Complementary Law 213/2025 subjected these operations to Susep’s rules, it has not yet been followed by specific regulations on contract terms. Without that rule of its own, the Superior Court of Justice held that the deadline agreed to in the contract prevails.

When does the deadline stated in the contract start to run?

The starting point depends on what the contract itself provides, and that is one reason to read the clause before signing. Some contracts start the count when the claim is reported, others when all required documents are delivered, and others when the internal investigation is completed. Whether the count runs in business days or calendar days also varies, which changes the real calendar considerably, since 90 business days come to about four and a half months. If in doubt, the participant should ask the entity for the information in writing.

What should I do if the compensation is late beyond the agreed deadline?

The first step is to gather the documentation for the case, including the contract, the bylaws, proof of monthly fee payments, the claim protocol number, and a record of the dates of each step. With that in hand, you can send the association a formal written demand. If the delay continues, the complaint can be taken to consumer protection bodies and, if necessary, to the courts, with a request for payment plus inflation adjustment and interest. Missing the deadline written in the contract puts the entity in default.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.