Rodriguez-Reyes v. BTB Asphalt Corporation, et al
Filing
243
OPINION and ORDER denying 158 Motion to Dismiss as Time Barred Signed by US Magistrate Judge Marcos E. Lopez on 11/17/2016. (JMB)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ-REYES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CIVIL NO. 14-1726 (MEL)
BTB ASPHALT CORPORATION, et al.
Defendants.
BTB ASPHALT CORPORATION,
Third Party Plaintiff,
vs.
SUPER ASPHALT PAVEMENT CORP, et al.
Third Party Defendants.
CURBELO
&
RULLAN
ENGINEERS, P.S.C.
CONSULTING
Third Party Plaintiff,
vs.
AUTOPISTAS METROPOLITANAS DE
PUERTO RICO, et al.
Third Party Defendants
MAPFRE PRAICO INSURANCE COMPANY
Third Party Plaintiff,
vs.
UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
Third Party Defendants
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is Universal Insurance Company (“Universal”) and Cooperativa
de Seguros Múltiples de Puerto Rico’s (“Seguros Múltiples”) joint motion to dismiss MAPFRE
PRAICO Insurance Company’s (“MAPFRE”) third party complaint (ECF No. 116) as time
barred. ECF No. 158.
I.
Factual Background and Procedural History
On September 25, 2014, Francisco Rodríguez Reyes (“plaintiff”) filed the original
complaint in this case. ECF No. 1. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that on March 9, 2014, his
father Ángel Rodríguez Cordero was working on an expressway when Mr. Rodríguez Cordero
was struck and killed by a truck driving in reverse. Id. at pg. 2 and 3. Plaintiff contends that his
father’s death was a result of defendants’ negligence (Id. at pg. 3), and that the court has
diversity jurisdiction over his state law claims. Id. at pg. 1.
On March 2, 2015, plaintiff amended his complaint to bring in Christopher Concepción
López, MAPFRE, and Curbelo and Rullán Consulting Engineers (“Curbelo”) as co-defendants.
See ECF No. 24 at pg. 2. The court subsequently issued an order requiring the parties to
exchange initial disclosures under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by June 1,
2015. ECF No. 50. In compliance with the same, Curbelo notified all parties of its initial
2
disclosures on June 1, 2015. ECF No. 172-1. According to MAPFRE, Curbelo included with its
initial disclosures certificates of liability insurance from Universal and Seguros Múltiples. ECF
No. 171 at pg. 2; See ECF Nos 172-1, 172-2 and 172-3.
On October 29, 2015, co-defendant MAPFRE filed a third party complaint against
Universal and Seguros Múltiples as insurers of Curbelo.1 ECF No. 116. Universal and Seguros
Múltiples subsequently filed the matter pending before the court, a joint motion to dismiss the
third party complaint on the grounds the third party complaint is time barred. ECF No. 158.
II.
Analysis
In Puerto Rico, tort actions are governed by the one year statute of limitations provided in
Article 1868 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code. P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5298. That one year
prescriptive period begins to run when the aggrieved party knew or should have known the
existence of the damage, who caused it, and the necessary elements to be able to effectively
exercise the cause of action. Fraguada Bonilla v. Hosp. Aux. Mutuo, 186 D.P.R. 365 (2012).
In support of their motion to dismiss, Universal and Seguros Múltiples rely on Fraguada
Bonilla v. Hosp. Aux. Mutuo 186 D.P.R. 365, a case in which the Puerto Rico Supreme Court
held that the filing of a tort action against one tortfeasor no longer interrupts the prescriptive
period for the other tortfeasors.2 The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico applied this principle in
Maldonado Rivera v. Suarez, 2016 TSPR 57 when they dismissed a third party complaint filed
by a defendant against an alleged joint tortfeasor. The Supreme Court reasoned that the period
for plaintiff to demand liability from the third party defendants had elapsed, and plaintiff never
interrupted that period by including the third party as co-defendants, therefore the subsidiary
1
Under Puerto Rico law, an insurance company is liable for the negligence or fault of its insured. 26 L.P.R.A. §
2001.
2
The parties’ briefing included citations to several untranslated cases in Spanish. Local Court Rule 5 requires that
all documents presented or filed be accompanied by a certified translation into English. U.S.Dist.Ct.Rules D.P.R.,
L.Cv.R. 5(g). Apart from citations to the cases discussed in this opinion, the court did not consider citations to
untranslated cases in Spanish.
3
third party claim was time barred as well. Id. In this respect, Universal and Seguros Múltiples
contend that they were not included in the plaintiff’s amended complaint, nor was the
prescriptive period interrupted against them; therefore, any claims against them expired by the
time MAPFRE filed its third party complaint.
If the prescriptive period for MAPFRE’s third party claim began to run on the date
plaintiff alleges his father died, Universal and Seguros Múltiples’ argument may have merit.
MAPFRE correctly argues, however, that the prescriptive period for any claims against
Unviersal and Seguros Múltiples did not begin to run until the parties became aware of Universal
and Seguros Múltiples’ liability. It was not until June 1, 2015, that Curbelo notified the parties of
its certificates of insurance pursuant to its initial disclosures. It was on that date that MAPFRE,
or any other party, was able to identify its right to remedy against Universal and Seguros
Múltiples as Curbelo’s insurers. Accordingly, the one year prescriptive period for any claim
against Universal and Seguros Múltiples did not begin to run until June 1, 2015. MAPFRE filed
its third party complaint against Universal and Seguros Múltiples on October 29, 2015; therefore
MAPFRE’s third party claim against Universal and Seguros Múltiples is not time barred.
III.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, Universal and Seguros Múltiples’ joint motion to
dismiss (ECF No. 158) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 17th day of November, 2016.
s/Marcos E. López
U.S. Magistrate Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?