Birriel Colón v. Supermercado Los Colobos (Econo Rial, Inc.) e Integrand Assurance Company
2023 TSPR 120
P.R.2023Background
- On May 11, 2018 Birriel slipped in Supermercado Econo Los Colobos and later sought damages for injuries and lost work.
- Birriel’s counsel sent a demand letter to Econo on August 27, 2018 (interrupting prescription); Econo referred the claim to its insurer, Integrand.
- Integrand (through an adjuster) acknowledged receipt on October 1, 2018, stated the claim had been referred for handling, requested medical authorizations and an interview, and sent further letters; meetings and communications continued (including a January 10, 2019 interview and a June 17, 2019 letter from plaintiff).
- Birriel sued Econo and Integrand on February 25, 2020. Econo moved to dismiss/for summary judgment, arguing the cause of action against it prescribed on August 27, 2019 and that communications with Integrand did not interrupt prescription as to Econo.
- Trial court and the Court of Appeals found factual disputes and denied summary disposition; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Integrand’s conduct created a reasonable belief it represented Econo and that plaintiff’s extrajudicial communications interrupted the prescriptive period as to Econo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extrajudicial communications with insurer interrupted prescription as to the insured | Birriel: insurer’s letters and meetings were referred by Econo and created reasonable belief insurer represented Econo, so interruption applies to Econo | Econo: no communications with Econo after Aug 27, 2018; insurer was not shown to be Econo’s representative; no interruption as to Econo | Held: Interruption effective as to Econo because insurer’s conduct induced a reasonable belief it acted for Econo; good-faith principle bars invoking prescription here |
| Whether lack of contractual solidarity between insurer and insured defeats interruption effect | Birriel: solidarity not required where insurer’s conduct induced plaintiff to pursue settlement with insurer in good faith | Econo: absent solidarity, plaintiff must interrupt prescription separately as to each party | Held: Irrelevant — effect rests on good faith and representation appearance, not on contractual solidarity |
| Whether insurer’s conduct amounted to unfair/deceptive practice relevant to prescriptive analysis | Birriel: insurer’s referrals and representations were misleading and fall within prohibited deceptive practices, supporting equitable treatment | Econo: focuses on procedural bars, disputes characterization of insurer conduct | Held: Court characterizes the conduct as a deceptive, unfair practice under insurance law context and rejects using prescription to penalize good-faith claimant |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on prescription grounds | Birriel: factual disputes exist about insurer’s representation and plaintiff’s reasonable belief; summary disposition improper | Econo: record shows no act interrupting prescription within the year before filing; summary judgment warranted | Held: Summary judgment improper because genuine factual disputes existed; appellate review de novo confirms need for a plenary proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- Velilla v. Pueblo Supermarkets, Inc., 111 DPR 585 (1981) (refuses to allow prescription defense when defendant induced claimant to deal with insurer/adjuster who appeared to represent defendant)
- Ruiz Millán v. Maryland Cas. Co., 101 DPR 249 (1973) (one‑year prescriptive term applies to direct actions against insurers)
- Nevárez Agosto v. United Surety et al., 209 DPR 346 (2022) (discusses interruption methods for prescription and extrajudicial claims)
- Aponte Valentín v. Pfizer Pharm., 208 DPR 263 (2021) (standards for summary judgment and appellate review explained)