Asociación de Suscripción Conjunta del Seguro de Responsabilidad Obligatorio v. Juarbe-Jiménez
659 F.3d 42
1st Cir.2011Background
- Puerto Rico enacted Act 253 in 1995 mandating minimum auto liability insurance and created the Association to insure those rejected by private insurers.
- Act 201 (Dec. 2009) amended Act 253 and classifies the Association as a private Association.
- Rule LXIX (Regulation 5493, 1996) required annual profit/loss determinations and pro rata sharing by members; Rule LXX (Dec. 2000) limited distributions and established a Special Reserve.
- 2008 audit determined distributions limited to 5% of annual premium profits; investment/other income to be placed in Special Reserve; certain repayments ordered.
- Association sued in 2008 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting a facial Takings Clause challenge to Rule LXX and seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality and injunction.
- District court held the facial challenge time-barred under the Puerto Rico one-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims and Williamson County ripeness principles were not met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does a facial Takings claim accrue for statute of limitations purposes? | Association contends accrual occurs at enactment of Rule LXX (2000). | Commissioner argues accrual follows Williamson ripeness; post-enactment timing governs. | Accrual occurs at enactment; claim is time-barred. |
| Is the claim properly characterized as facial or as-applied? | Association maintains a facial challenge to Rule LXX. | Argument shifts under Citizens United; but Takings §1983 standard remains facial vs. as-applied. | Claim was properly a facial challenge to Rule LXX. |
| Does Citizens United change facial vs. as-applied Takings analysis for accrual? | Citizens United relaxes facial vs. as-applied distinction. | Citizens United does not alter Takings facial vs. as-applied rules. | Citizens United does not affect the Takings facial vs. as-applied framework here. |
| Was the audit-related claim preserved or waived? | Association raised audit issues in opposition to summary judgment. | Audit claim not clearly raised in complaint; waived. | Audit/related claims waived; not decided on timeliness. |
| Did Williamson County’s ripeness requirement apply to facial Takings claims for accrual? | Ripeness not applicable to accrual for facial challenge. | Ripeness required under Williamson County for some Takings claims. | Facial Takings accrual aligns with enactment date, not Williamson County ripeness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. De-Benedictis, 480 U.S. 470 (1987) (distinguishes facial takings from as-applied challenges; test for facial taking)
- Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002) (recognizes facial challenge ripeness; cannot easily be used to defeat facial takings)
- Suitum v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725 (1997) (facial challenges generally ripe when statute/regulation enacted)
- Moran Vega v. Cruz Burgos, 537 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2008) (one-year PR limitations for §1983 actions; accrual timing matters)
- San Remo Hotel v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 545 U.S. 323 (2005) (ripeness/accrual related principles in takings context)
- Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992) (distinguishes facial vs. as-applied takings and ripeness)
- Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680 (9th Cir. 1993) (discusses facial vs. as-applied takings ripeness)
- Norco Constr., Inc. v. King Cnty., 801 F.2d 1143 (9th Cir. 1986) (accrual/ripeness interplay in takings)