The traditional prescription notion (or concept) and more specifically, in the insurance contract, is given by its objective interpretation. However, this notion (or concept) has been changing, by the incorrect (in our view) introduction (or addition) of purely subjective elements or criteria.

In fact, the purpose of this paper will be to do (or to carry out) a study about the traditional conception of the prescription, as opposed to the “modern” trend and for many controversial, subjective vision of the prescription. This last vision that is linked with the Estoppel Theory (venire contra factum proprium). 

Once presented the theoretical and legal view of the traditional and modern concept of the prescription, we will focus on the position adjusted to the Colombian legal system, that should guide judges when making decisions adjusted and according to the law. 

To demonstrate the concepts of prescription we will presented the arbitration award of Distral SA (EMA) General Electric Canada Inc. vs. La Nacional Compañía de Seguros Generales de Colombia S.A (traditional concept), and the arbitration awards of Alstom Brasil Ltda. Sucursal Colombia vs. Compañía Suramericana de Seguros S.A. and Beneficiencia del Valle del Cauca E.I.C.E. vs. La Previsora Compañía de Seguros (modern concept).

Finally, there will be a critic intended to demonstrate the legal error of arbitration courts in seeking to incorporate or apply principles or theories, without carefully analyzing the factual basis on which lay, that do not have legal validity in the Colombian legal system.