Policy Continuity and Premium Restitution in Indonesian Insurance Avoidance Disputes

An insurer's allegation of nondisclosure can unsettle a policy before a court determines whether avoidance is justified. Constitutional Court Decision Number 83/PUU-XXII/2024 restricts unilateral avoidance under Article 251 of the Indonesian Commercial Code. The position of premiums, continuing obligations, and unpaid benefits during the resulting dispute requires a separate private law analysis. This article examines that interval through doctrinal research combining statutory interpretation, close reading of the decision, and a focused review of insurance scholarship. A limited comparison with the United Kingdom's consumer insurance legislation tests the relationship between procedural safeguards and substantive remedies. The analysis distinguishes policy avoidance from claim rejection, suspension, expiry, and nonrenewal. It develops a proposed approach under which a disputed policy remains the reference point for contractual performance until an effective agreement or judicial determination changes its status. That approach does not establish an automatic entitlement to every claimed benefit. Premium collection requires an intelligible account of the protection offered; refund entitlement requires separate examination of good faith, the period of risk, and the legal basis for retention. The article proposes a reasoned notice, preservation of underwriting evidence, a documented premium arrangement, and an express financial account at settlement or judgment. These measures are presented as interpretive and regulatory proposals rather than remedies already ordered by the Constitutional Court. The contribution lies in connecting control over avoidance with the allocation of contractual risk and money during the dispute itself.