Consejo De Titulares Cond Esj Towers v. Chubb Insurance Company of Puerto Rico
KLCE202500303
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...May 6, 2025Background
- After Hurricane María, ESJ Towers and related parties (attendees/trusts/LLCs, collectively "Recurridos") sued Chubb Insurance, alleging insufficient payment of extensive insured property damage claims (over $21.6 million claimed).
- Chubb and Recurridos began litigation in Puerto Rico's courts, with contested discovery and calendar orders shaping disclosure of experts and evidence.
- In December 2021, the parties submitted a Case Management Report identifying expected witnesses and experts; Chubb named an expert but later sought to update/expand this.
- The trial court issued strict discovery deadlines, ultimately ruling in January 2025 that Chubb could not announce any additional expert beyond the one listed in the December 2021 report, since discovery was deemed closed.
- Chubb moved for reconsideration, arguing that (1) discovery was still ongoing, (2) opposing party was aware of the possible expert, and (3) the harsh sanction of exclusion was unwarranted without prior warning or lesser sanctions.
- The trial court denied reconsideration. Chubb sought certiorari from the appellate court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of additional expert not previously disclosed | Exclude new expert to avoid prejudice and surprise | Chubb should be allowed to add expert since discovery was open and no prior warning was given | Trial court abused discretion; exclusion only after prior warning or lesser sanctions |
| Need for intermediate sanctions before severe remedies | Exclusion justified due to late disclosure | Less severe (economic) sanctions required before exclusion | Courts must warn and consider milder sanctions first |
| Discovery cutoff and awareness of opposing expert | Discovery closed, late disclosure prejudicial | Discovery ongoing, opposing party aware of expert role | Discovery was open, so exclusion premature |
| Procedural fairness in imposing discovery sanctions | Exclusion immediate, without need for prior notice | Exclusion extreme without prior explicit notice | Must grant notice/alternative sanctions before excluding perito |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera et al. v. Arcos Dorados et al., 212 DPR 194 (2023) (exclusion of key expert testimony is an exceptional, last-resort sanction only permissible after fair notice and lesser sanctions are considered)
- JMG Investment v. ELA, 203 DPR 708 (2019) (explaining certiorari standards for interlocutory orders in Puerto Rico)
- Citibank et al. v. ACBI et al., 200 DPR 724 (2018) (appellate courts should not intervene in trial court case management discretion absent manifest error or abuse)
- In re Pagani Padró, 181 DPR 517 (2011) (trial courts must ensure efficient, timely proceedings for fair justice)