Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 3:31:31 GMT
Regulated by specific rules, representation contracts for the sale of insurance do not allow the application, even by analogy, of Law 4,866/1965, which regulates the activities of independent commercial representatives.
STJ
According to the rapporteur, minister Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino, insurance representatives have their own rules, and it is not appropriate to apply the STJ commercial representative law
The decision was made by the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice when establishing the jurisdiction of a court in Brasília, as provided for in the insurance representation contract, to judge a collection action filed by an insurance company against a retail group due to the early termination of the contract.
Rapporteur of the appeal, Minister Portugal Mobile Number List Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino highlighted that the business relationship maintained between the parties was one of insurance representation, governed by specific normative acts, not conforming to the commercial representation contract regulated by Law 4,886/1965.
According to the minister, the analogous application of the rule in article 39 of Law 4,886/1965 — which establishes the jurisdiction of the commercial representative's domicile as competent to judge disputes between the parties — is also impossible, as it could only be used in the event of absence of specific rule.
"Whether by the guidelines of the Private Insurance Superintendence (Susep), which regulate the insurance representative, or by the Civil Code, which regulates the insurance agency contract, for either hypothesis there is specific regulation, making the application by analogy of the article 39 of Law 4,886/1965 to the case", stated the rapporteur.
According to Sanseverino, even if the application of Law 4,886/1965 was admitted, the STJ, interpreting the rule, defined it as a hypothesis of relative competence, which could be ruled out at the will of the contracting parties.
"Therefore, as jurisdiction is related, the will of the parties expressed in the disputed pact has sufficient strength to change it, thus simply verifying the requirements of hyposufficiency and prejudice to be in court", said the minister.
In the case at hand, Sanseverino highlighted that the representative companies constitute a large economic group, operating through a network with dozens of stores. Therefore, for the rapporteur, it is not credible that the business group has difficulty understanding the terms of the agreement or that its access to justice is hampered due to the forum selection clause in Brasília. With information from the STJ press office.
STJ
According to the rapporteur, minister Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino, insurance representatives have their own rules, and it is not appropriate to apply the STJ commercial representative law
The decision was made by the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice when establishing the jurisdiction of a court in Brasília, as provided for in the insurance representation contract, to judge a collection action filed by an insurance company against a retail group due to the early termination of the contract.
Rapporteur of the appeal, Minister Portugal Mobile Number List Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino highlighted that the business relationship maintained between the parties was one of insurance representation, governed by specific normative acts, not conforming to the commercial representation contract regulated by Law 4,886/1965.
According to the minister, the analogous application of the rule in article 39 of Law 4,886/1965 — which establishes the jurisdiction of the commercial representative's domicile as competent to judge disputes between the parties — is also impossible, as it could only be used in the event of absence of specific rule.
"Whether by the guidelines of the Private Insurance Superintendence (Susep), which regulate the insurance representative, or by the Civil Code, which regulates the insurance agency contract, for either hypothesis there is specific regulation, making the application by analogy of the article 39 of Law 4,886/1965 to the case", stated the rapporteur.
According to Sanseverino, even if the application of Law 4,886/1965 was admitted, the STJ, interpreting the rule, defined it as a hypothesis of relative competence, which could be ruled out at the will of the contracting parties.
"Therefore, as jurisdiction is related, the will of the parties expressed in the disputed pact has sufficient strength to change it, thus simply verifying the requirements of hyposufficiency and prejudice to be in court", said the minister.
In the case at hand, Sanseverino highlighted that the representative companies constitute a large economic group, operating through a network with dozens of stores. Therefore, for the rapporteur, it is not credible that the business group has difficulty understanding the terms of the agreement or that its access to justice is hampered due to the forum selection clause in Brasília. With information from the STJ press office.
we need more members on this forum... 
