Consejo de Titulares del Condominio Parques de Cupey y otros v. Triple-S Propiedad, Inc.
2025 TSPR 82
| Supreme Court of Puerto Rico | 2025Background
- Condo owners (Consejo de Titulares) sued Triple‑S Propiedad for breach of an insurance contract and bad‑faith handling of hurricane (Irma/Maria) property claims, seeking over $14.7M.
- During discovery plaintiffs requested the insurer's underwriting file and the loss reserve amount(s) assigned to the claim. Triple‑S objected as irrelevant, confidential, and privileged (business secret, ORSA/regulatory confidentiality, and work‑product).
- Trial court denied production of underwriting and reserves; the Court of Appeals reversed as to reserves and underwriting; certiorari followed to the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court (majority) reversed the Court of Appeals, holding underwriting files and claim reserves are not discoverable in this first‑party property coverage / bad‑faith context under the facts presented because they are not reasonably related to coverage/adjustment and are preliminary accounting estimates.
- The majority emphasized discovery limits (pertinence and privileges), the regulatory purpose of reserves, and that plaintiffs had not shown a reasonable link between those materials and proof of insurer bad faith. Two separate dissents argued for broader discovery given the liberal discovery rule and the plaintiffs’ allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discoverability of insurer loss reserves | Reserves are relevant to bad‑faith and can show insurer's view of claim value, state of mind, and negotiation posture | Reserves are preliminary accounting estimates for regulatory/solvency purposes, not admissions of liability; irrelevant and confidential | Not discoverable here—court holds reserves are impertinent under the case's facts and may be protected absent a timely, particularized privilege claim |
| Discoverability of underwriting file (policy underwriting) | Underwriting file can show misrepresentations, pre‑existing condition, or underwriting practices that bear on coverage, causation, and bad faith | Underwriting relates to pre‑policy evaluation and is irrelevant to coverage and adjustment disputes; also asserted as trade secret/confidential | Not discoverable here—court holds underwriting file impertinent to a coverage/adjustment dispute absent a particularized showing of relevance |
| Applicability of statutory/regulatory confidentiality (ORSA / Art. 53.080) | Plaintiffs: ORSA protection does not extend automatically to reserves or underwriting; no absolute bar unless invoked correctly | Triple‑S: invoked ORSA/regulatory confidentiality and commercial secret protections to block discovery | Court: ORSA expressly protects ORSA reports but does not automatically cloak ordinary reserves/underwriting; statutory confidentiality does not extend by analogy without proper showing |
| Burden to invoke business‑secret or work‑product privilege | Plaintiffs: insurer failed to timely and specifically prove privilege elements | Insurer: asserted business‑secret and work‑product protections | Court: insurer failed to establish privilege elements with requisite particularity; but nonetheless denied discovery on pertinence grounds (not on privilege grounds) |
Key Cases Cited
- Izquierdo II v. Cruz y otros, 213 D.P.R. 607 (recognizes liberal, broad discovery and trial court discretion to manage discovery)
- Rivera et al. v. Arcos Dorados et al., 212 D.P.R. 194 (trial courts’ broad discretion in discovery and appellate deference unless abuse shown)
- Cruz Flores et al. v. Hosp. Ryder et al., 210 D.P.R. 465 (discusses limits of discovery and pertinence standard)
- McNeil Healthcare v. Mun. Las Piedras II, 206 D.P.R. 659 (scope of discoverable matter and privileged materials)
- Ponce Adv. Med. v. Santiago González et al., 197 D.P.R. 891 (procedure and elements for invoking business‑secret privilege)
- Serrano Picón v. Multinational Life Ins., 212 D.P.R. 981 (insurer business is matter of public interest; insurance governed by Code of Insurance)
- Feliciano Aguayo v. MAPFRE, 207 D.P.R. 138 (bad faith is presumed good faith; plaintiff must prove insurer bad faith)