Universal Insurance Company v. Estado Libre Asociado De Puerto Rico
KLAN202400766
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Oct 22, 2024Background
- Puerto Rico (ELA) confiscated a 2020 Ford Ecosport vehicle for allegedly being used in violation of the Law of Arms (Art. 6.15) in October 2023.
- Oriental Bank and Universal Insurance (financiers/insurer of the vehicle) filed to challenge the confiscation, arguing the notification was untimely under Puerto Rico’s 2011 Uniform Forfeiture Law.
- The government notified Oriental Bank about the confiscation more than 30 days after seizing the vehicle, arguing the 90-day investigatory exception applied.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Oriental Bank, finding the government failed to justify the delayed notification and thus the forfeiture was invalid.
- The government appealed, arguing fact issues existed over the justification for the 90-day notice period and the application of the exception for investigatory retention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the government required to notify within 30 days of seizure? | Yes, 30-day deadline applies; untimely notice invalidates forfeiture. | Exception for 90-days applies as vehicle retained for investigation. | 30-day rule applies; no proper showing for 90-day extension. |
| Did fact issues exist preventing summary judgment? | No factual controversy, as government provided no details of ongoing investigation justifying delay. | Genuine issue exists about whether investigation justified delay. | No genuine issue; government evidence insufficient and generic. |
| Did the government prove the necessity for investigatory retention? | No evidence submitted linking the need for retention to an actual investigation. | Assertion that investigation was ongoing supports 90-day term. | Government failed to offer specifics or documents justifying longer retention. |
| Is the forfeiture invalid if notification is untimely? | Yes, untimely notification renders forfeiture void. | No, argues that investigatory circumstances justify timing. | Forfeiture void due to late notification under statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reliable Financial v. ELA, 195 DPR 917 (P.R. 2016) (government must give specific reasons and documentation to justify investigatory delay in forfeiture notification)
- Universal Ins. y otro v. ELA y otros, 211 DPR 455 (P.R. 2023) (outlines standards and presumption of legality in civil forfeiture, burden of proof on claimant)
- Coop. Seg. Múlt. et als. v. ELA et al., 209 DPR 796 (P.R. 2022) (discusses nature and requirements for in rem civil forfeiture action)