Mexico’s court system is going through one of the most significant transformations in its history.
Following the constitutional reform approved in 2024, Mexico held its first judicial elections in June 2025, resulting in a new Supreme Court and hundreds of new federal circuit magistrates and district judges taking office later that year.
Much has been written about the political and constitutional implications of the reform. For insurers and reinsurers doing business in Mexico, or currently involved in litigation here, there is another issue that deserves particular attention: the practical effect of such a significant transition on ongoing cases.
We are already seeing this firsthand.
The challenge is not necessarily the quality of the new judiciary. In our experience to date, many of the newly elected judges are well qualified and are approaching their new responsibilities seriously.
The difficulty is one of continuity.
New judges have inherited courts with substantial existing caseloads. In many cases, they are being asked to make important decisions in proceedings that may have been running for several years, without having followed the evidence, arguments and procedural history from the outset. At the same time, changes in judicial personnel, court assignments and administrative structures have inevitably created disruption as dockets are reassigned and new teams become familiar with the cases before them.
For insurers and reinsurers involved in litigation in Mexico, this creates an additional element of litigation risk.
A case that previously had a degree of predictability may become less predictable when the judge changes midway through the proceedings. This does not mean that the eventual decision will be wrong. It does mean that lawyers must increasingly consider how best to present the history, key evidence and legal issues in a complex case to a judge who may be seeing it for the first time.
The concern, therefore, is not necessarily one of judicial quality, but of judicial continuity.
This changing environment may also provide an additional reason for insurers to consider alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, where appropriate. Mediation, arbitration and negotiated resolution can, in the right case, reduce exposure to procedural uncertainty, shorten the path to resolution and provide parties with greater control over litigation risk.
The judicial transition is also not yet complete. Under the current timetable, the remaining federal circuit magistrates and district judges who were not part of the 2025 election are expected to be elected in 2028.
We should therefore expect a degree of uncertainty, and with it increased litigation risk, to remain part of the Mexican insurance litigation landscape for the foreseeable future.
There is nevertheless reason for cautious optimism. As the new judges work through the cases they inherited, become more familiar with their courts and establish greater continuity with their dockets, some of the disruption we are currently experiencing should diminish. However, this is still a long way down the road.
For insurers doing business in Mexico, the key over the next few years will be to recognise this additional source of litigation risk, adapt litigation strategy accordingly and, where appropriate, consider whether alternative forms of dispute resolution may offer a more predictable route to resolving disputes.
Michael Hennesy, Kennedys´ Regional Managing Partner for Latin America
