Cnsjo De Titulares Condo Villas Del Faro v. Mapfre Praico Insurance Company
KLAN202300705
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Sep 28, 2023Background
- After Hurricane María the Consejo de Titulares del Condominio Villas del Faro sued MAPFRE for breach of contract, bad faith, and Insurance Code violations seeking multimillion-dollar damages.
- MAPFRE issued two checks (totaling about $286,030.98) which it later treated as an offer of payment in finiquito (accord and satisfaction); the Consejo endorsed/accepted the checks but disputed that they extinguished the claim.
- MAPFRE filed a reconvención alleging the Consejo committed fraud, overstated damages, and sought restitution of payments plus investigative, adjustment, and legal costs (~$250,000).
- The trial court previously denied MAPFRE’s summary‑judgment attempt to establish payment in finiquito, finding factual disputes about damages paid and the acceptance of payment as full settlement.
- The Consejo moved to dismiss MAPFRE’s reconvención under Rule 10.2(5) for failure to state a claim and argued fraud allegations did not satisfy Rule 7.2 specificity; the trial court granted dismissal and denied reconsideration.
- MAPFRE appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed the partial judgment dismissing the reconvención, holding the reconvención was conclusory, failed the plausibility standard, and conflicted with the trial court’s prior ruling (law of the case).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of fraud pleading under Rule 7.2 | MAPFRE: reconvención adequately alleges fraud and details supporting facts | Consejo: allegations are conclusory, lack required particularity | Held: dismissal affirmed — fraud allegations fail Rule 7.2 and plausibility standard |
| Existence of payment in finiquito (accord and satisfaction) | MAPFRE: two checks and endorsement language constituted a final payment extinguishing obligation | Consejo: factual disputes exist as to what was claimed, what was paid, and whether payment was accepted as final | Held: prior trial-court resolution found the three elements not proven; reconvención cannot rest on a contrary premise (law of the case) |
| Appropriate remedy: dismissal under Rule 10.2(5) (failure to state a claim) | MAPFRE: reconvención states viable claims and should survive dismissal | Consejo: reconvención lacks factual allegations to make a plausible claim for relief | Held: Rule 10.2(5) dismissal proper — reconvención not plausible and rests on conclusory assertions |
| Application of plausibility standard (Twombly/Iqbal) | MAPFRE: pleading suffices under standards; facts infer fraud | Consejo: allegations do not rise above speculation; discovery should not proceed on conclusory claims | Held: court applied plausibility test (Twombly/Iqbal) and concluded reconvención fails to meet the standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading framework applied)
- Martínez & Co. v. Long Const. Co., 101 D.P.R. 830 (P.R. 1973) (payment in finiquito requires absence of oppression or undue advantage)
- Gilormini Merle v. Pujals Ayala, 116 D.P.R. 482 (P.R. 1985) (recognition and principles of accord and satisfaction)
- Carpets & Rugs v. Tropical Reps, 175 D.P.R. 615 (P.R. 2009) (fraud allegations are matters special and must be pleaded with particularity)
- Feliciano Aguayo v. Mapfre Panamerican Insurance Co., 207 D.P.R. 138 (P.R. 2021) (discussing payment in finiquito and related principles)