Corporate case law

Mayaud Maissoneuve de Pérez Catella y otra c/ Sur Seguros de Vida S.A. y Citibank s/ ordinario (National Commercial Court of Appeals, Chamber B, 06/12/2002)

Misrepresentation by omission, good faith, and proof of material circumstances in a life-insurance policy linked to a banking institution. The Commercial Court of Appeals applied the reciprocal duty of disclosure strictly and required a concrete relationship between the omitted fact and the insured risk.

CNCom., Sala B06/12/2002

Case caption

«Mayaud Maissoneuve de Pérez Catella y otra c/ Sur Seguros de Vida S.A. y Citibank s/ ordinario»

What was at issue

Misrepresentation by omission, good faith, and proof of material circumstances in a life-insurance policy linked to a banking institution.

What was decided

The Commercial Court of Appeals applied the reciprocal duty of disclosure strictly and required a concrete relationship between the omitted fact and the insured risk.

Extractable criterion

The Commercial Court of Appeals applied the reciprocal duty of disclosure strictly and required a concrete relationship between the omitted fact and the insured risk.
The holding should be read in light of the legal interest protected in the area of insurance, not solely by reference to the documentary form of the act.
Evidence of the specific facts and of their impact on corporate or creditor rights is decisive when applying the precedent’s doctrine to another case.

Citation: CNCom., Sala B, «Mayaud Maissoneuve de Pérez Catella y otra c/ Sur Seguros de Vida S.A. y Citibank s/ ordinario», 06/12/2002 — Jurisprudencia societaria y comercial

Practical application

It is useful for bancassurance, nondisclosure, and the insurer’s burden of proof.

Frequently asked questions

What is the main takeaway from the case?

The Commercial Court of Appeals applied the reciprocal duty of disclosure strictly and required a concrete relationship between the omitted fact and the insured risk.

Does the rule apply automatically today?

No. The current statutory framework and the specific facts must be verified. Historical precedents retain doctrinal value, but later reforms may alter how they apply.

What should be proven in similar litigation?

The relevant corporate or commercial documentation, the parties’ conduct, the specific harm, and the facts connecting that harm to the central issue in the case: Misrepresentation by omission, good faith, and proof of material circumstances in a life-insurance policy linked to a banking institution.

Informational commentary on a published ruling; it does not constitute advice nor guarantee an outcome. Application to a case depends on its circumstances.

Do you need advice on this matter?

The firm is headquartered in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and advises clients worldwide.

Contact the firm