Muneki I Apartments v. Triple-S Propiedad, Inc.
KLCE202300077
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Feb 28, 2023Background
- After Hurricane María, Muñeki I and II (and related entities) sued insurer Triple-S for breach of insurance contracts, bad faith and damages for allegedly failing to adjust and pay claims.
- Trial court set expert-report discovery deadlines (originally April 30, 2022); later the court denied a long extension but granted a limited extension to November 30, 2022 and warned sanctions for noncompliance.
- Triple-S emailed two expert reports on November 10, 2022 and later identified adjuster Rafael Betancourt as a witness on November 28, 2022; plaintiffs moved to exclude the late-disclosed experts and reports.
- The trial court (TPI) excluded the two expert reports and their testimony for tardy disclosure and also excluded Betancourt as a witness for being notified two days before the discovery cutoff.
- Triple-S petitioned for reconsideration and then filed certiorari in the Court of Appeals challenging those exclusion orders.
- The Court of Appeals reversed: it concluded the TPI abused its discretion by imposing extreme evidentiary sanctions without first using progressive measures (warnings, monetary sanctions, opportunity to cure) and found no record showing contumacious or bad-faith conduct requiring exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TPI properly excluded two expert reports disclosed after the original deadline | Triple-S disclosed reports late, prejudicing Muñeki by preventing depositions and other discovery; exclusion warranted | Triple-S said disclosure fell within the extended discovery period (Nov 30) or was inadvertent, no prejudice; exclusion overly severe absent prior sanctions | Reversed — exclusion was an abuse of discretion because court did not apply progressive sanctions or give opportunity to cure before striking evidence |
| Whether TPI properly excluded adjuster Rafael Betancourt for last‑minute disclosure | Late notice (Nov 28) deprived Muñeki of opportunity to depose and prepare; exclusion appropriate | Triple-S argued notice occurred before discovery cutoff; plaintiffs did not timely object; exclusion disproportionate | Reversed — trial court unreasonably excluded the witness; prior warnings/sanctions and reasoned process required |
| Proper remedial process for discovery noncompliance (scope of sanctions) | Heavy sanction justified to prevent delay and docket congestion | Sanctions must be progressive: admonition, monetary sanctions, notice to party, reasonable cure period before extreme measures | Held that rules require graduated measures (per Rule 39.2/Valentín line); extreme sanctions only for contumacious or bad‑faith conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Valentín v. Mun. de Añasco, 145 D.P.R. 887 (1998) (exclusion of evidence is a severe sanction akin to dismissal and requires contumacious or bad‑faith conduct)
- Berríos Falcón v. Torres Merced, 175 D.P.R. 962 (2009) (discovery is broad and liberal to avoid surprise and injustice)
- McNeil Healthcare v. Mun. Las Piedras II, 206 D.P.R. 659 (2021) (discussing discovery’s purpose and scope)
- García v. Padró, 165 D.P.R. 324 (2005) (abuse of discretion standard for appellate review of trial court rulings)
- León v. Rest. El Tropical, 154 D.P.R. 249 (2001) (explaining certiorari as remedy for correcting trial court errors)
- Scotiabank de Puerto Rico v. ZAF Corp., 202 D.P.R. 478 (2019) (Rule 52.1/certiorari jurisdictional guidance)