Pellot Gonzalez’ Litigation Department is committed to the zealous defense of its clients’ legitimate commercial and personal interests. As part of that commitment, we send you this headline, which summarizes new developments relevant to trial and appellate advocacy.
Distribution: Next Step Medical Co. v. Biomed, 2016 TSPR 120, clarifies an important aspect of Distribution Law. The lack of just cause to terminate a distribution contract under Act 75, by itself, does not justify injunctive relief to preserve the principal-distributor relationship during a trial’s pendency. The Court still has to hear both the principal and the distributor in order to balance the parties’ interests and the public policy of protecting distributors.
Product Liability: Rodríguez Méndez v. Laser Eye Surgery Management, 2016 TSPR 121, adopted the norm of strict responsibility for failure to instruct the consumer about adequate maintenance of a product.
Creditors’ Rights: Banco Santander v. Correa García, 2016 TSPR 201. The Mandatory Mediation Act means what its title suggests: mediation is mandatory in every mortgage foreclosure proceeding if the mortgaged property is debtor’s main dwelling, defendant answered the complaint and the Court has not entered debtor’s default or stricken his allegations. The part of the Act’s text that apparently granted discretion to the judge to decide whether mediation is “necessary”, only means that the court shall order mediation when the aforementioned requirements are fulfilled, which makes mediation “necessary”. If debtor is on judicial default or his allegations were stricken, mediation is not “necessary”. The rule applies prospectively; final judgements will not be affected.
Torts: Maldonado Rivera v. Suárez et als., 2016 TSPR 57, restricted third party complaints against joint tortfeasors. If plaintiff’s cause of action against an alleged tortfeasor who is not a party to the suit expired, defendant cannot file a third-party complaint against the latter. Furthermore, if the court determines that the person who was not sued on time is actually responsible for some percentage of the damages, defendant won’t be responsible for that percentage.
Insurance Law: Albert Rodrígez v. Integrad Assurance Company, 2016 TSPR 195. An insurance company will only be able to successfully oppose the lack of or untimely notification defense to a non-insured party’s complaint if: 1) it proves it suffered substantial harm as a result of the notification defect, or 2) proves fraud or collusion. The holding limits an important defense.
Trial Practice: Cacho Pérez v. Hatton Gotay, 2016 TSPR 51. In this case the Court of First Instance awarded damages in the amount of 12 million dollars and granted a post-judgement levy petition without requiring plaintiff to pay bond. However, the Court of Appeals reversed in part and remanded, concluding that the Court of First Instance should conduct further proceedings in order to correctly assess damages. Although the pre-appeal judgment justified a levy without bond, the Court of Appeals reversal of the money award left plaintiff without a specific amount capable of justifying a bondless levy.
This publication is a summary of recent case law referred to herein and is not intended to substitute legal advice. We encourage you to contact us or your attorney if you have any questions or need assistance regarding any of the matters presented herein. An attorney-client relationship with Pellot-González, Tax Attorneys & Counselors at Law, P.S.C. cannot be formed by reading or responding to this memorandum. Such a relationship may be formed only by express agreement with Pellot-González, Tax Attorneys & Counselors at Law, P.S.C.
This publication has been prepared for information purposes only and may constitute an advertisement under the law. Therefore, you may choose not to receive these messages from Pellot-González, Tax Attorneys & Counselors at Law, P.S.C. at this e-mail address by forwarding this message with the title “Unsubscribe” to gerena@pellot-gonzalez.com.
