Insurance dispute resolution in the UAE and Egypt: Same purpose, different philosophy

The insurance dispute resolution frameworks in the Middle East have been subject to recent development.

The UAE in 2024 introduced an ombudsman unit, Sanadak, or “by your side” in Arabic. In 2025, by the Egyptian Financial Regulatory Authority (FRA)’s Decree No. 254 of 2025, a committee system for the settlement of disputes between insurance companies and insureds was introduced in Egypt. 

The question that naturally arises is the extent of the similarities and the differences between the two systems. This article sheds light on the main features of both systems. 

While both jurisdictions rely on specialised mechanisms outside the ordinary courts, they diverge in structure: the UAE adopts a two-tier model combining an ombudsman stage and then adjudication, whereas Egypt relies primarily on regulator-led dispute settlement committees to adjudicate insurance disputes.

Institutional framework: Two-tier disputes model vs direct resolution

In the UAE, insurance dispute resolution operates through a layered system. At the first tier, Sanadak operates as an independent ombudsman unit designed to receive and resolve consumer complaints (restricted to complaints by individuals and by small and medium enterprises - SMEs) against insurers and other financial institutions. It is apparent from the consumer-friendly way Sanadak registers complaints that it is intended to provide a frontline, accessible dispute resolution mechanism for less sophisticated insureds. However, this is not the final stage. Where disputes are not resolved, they may escalate to formal dispute resolution bodies, including specialised insurance dispute committees (IDRC) established under Board Resolution No. 33 of 2019 and, if the parties are still not satisfied with the results, they can resort to the courts.  

In contrast, Egypt adopts a more direct model for all categories of insureds. Disputes are submitted to the FRA’s Committee for the Protection of Policyholders and Settlement of Insurance Disputes (PPSID), which is empowered to consider and determine disputes at first instance. If the parties are dissatisfied with the PPSID’s decision, any of them may challenge it before an appeal committee and, if still dissatisfied with the appeal committee’s decision, may then resort to the Economic Courts within 30 days of its issuance. The decision otherwise becomes final and binding.

Scope and jurisdiction

Sanadak’s jurisdiction is broad, covering complaints by a significant class of insureds (individuals and SME’s) against licensed financial institutions, including insurance companies, as part of an intended unified financial services dispute framework by the Central Bank as regulator (although it expressly excludes claims that are subject to arbitration). 

At the second tier, insurance disputes fall within the remit of the specialised IDRC.

In Egypt, the PPSID has sector-specific jurisdiction, addressing disputes between, policyholders and insurers and reinsurers, and insurance-related entities.

While insureds must go through the Sanadak or PPSID process before resorting to the ordinary courts, the exceptions are that insureds are not prohibited from resorting directly to arbitration, or in case of the UAE, to offshore courts such as the Dubai International Financial Centre if the relevant policy contains an express jurisdiction clause. 

Formalities

Sanadak is designed to offer a consumer-friendly entry point. It is characterised by accessibility, informality, and emphasis on early resolution. Its objective is to resolve disputes efficiently before they escalate. If resolution is not achieved, disputes transition into a more formal adjudicatory phase before the IDRC, where procedural rules become more structured.

In Egypt, the PPSID process is formal from the outset. A party files its claim along with the supporting documents with fees payable based on claim value. A technical secretariat reviews the complaint to prepare the case.

Why this matters?

The differences are not merely procedural, but shape how disputes should be approached by insurers in practice.

In the UAE, the existence of an initial ombudsman stage highlights an intention for disputes to be filtered, negotiated, and potentially resolved at an early stage. The procedure therefore places greater emphasis on:

• early engagement with complainants, 
• consistency in claims handling by ensuring that insureds are advised in writing as to coverage decisions, and 
• reputational and regulatory considerations. 

Historically the court process in Egypt has been exceptionally slow. The greater expedition of the PPSID process is therefore a welcome development. However, unlike the UAE system disputes proceed directly into a formal process, requiring:

• early legal positioning through formal pleadings on matters of legal principle, 
• structured formal submissions, and 
• readiness for a quasi-judicial process from the outset. 

For insurers operating regionally, the differences in the processes in Egypt and the UAE mean adopting jurisdiction-specific dispute strategies, rather than a uniform approach.

Conclusion

While both the UAE and Egypt aim to enhance consumer protection and dispute resolution efficiency by taking certain insurance disputes out of the court resolution process, their frameworks differ in structure.

The UAE’s two-tier model introduces a filtering mechanism through Sanadak. Egypt, by contrast, relies on a single, committee-based adjudicatory model from the outset.