The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of Luma Energy LLC and Luma Energy Servco, LLC, confirming the legality of their suspension of electricity services to TraFon Group Inc. The court's decision, issued on May 29, 2026, affects TraFon, a company involved in food distribution and infrastructure, which had contested the suspension due to unpaid bills exceeding $8 million. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to legal notification requirements in utility service agreements.

The case, documented under docket number TA2026RA00180, arose from TraFon’s claims that Luma Energy failed to provide adequate notice before disconnecting their electricity service. The court's decision has significant implications for how utility companies manage service suspensions and the obligations they have to notify customers.

TraFon Group Inc. is a business that operates in various sectors, including food distribution and infrastructure. The dispute began when Luma Energy suspended TraFon's electricity service on December 3, 2025, due to unpaid bills. TraFon argued that this suspension was illegal because Luma did not provide the required prior notifications as outlined in Puerto Rico's energy regulations.

According to TraFon, they had received multiple warnings regarding their commercial account but claimed that they were not properly notified about the industrial account, which was the subject of the suspension. They filed a complaint with the Puerto Rico Energy Bureau, seeking to have the suspension reversed and to enforce specific compliance with notification regulations before any service interruptions.

In response, Luma Energy maintained that they had followed the necessary legal procedures for notifying TraFon about the outstanding debts and potential service suspension. They argued that TraFon had been informed multiple times about their debt, which had accumulated to over $8 million. Luma claimed that they had fulfilled all notification requirements, including sending written warnings and making automated phone calls.

The case was brought before the Puerto Rico Energy Bureau, which held a hearing to examine the evidence and testimonies from both parties. The Bureau ultimately ruled in favor of Luma, stating that they had adequately notified TraFon about the service suspension in accordance with the law.

The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Rivera Marchand and joined by Judges Mateu Meléndez, Boria Vizcarrondo, and Robles Adorno, upheld the Bureau's decision. The court found that Luma had complied with the notification requirements outlined in Article 6.27 of Law No. 57-2014, which governs the suspension of electric service for non-payment. The ruling stated, "LUMA se encontraba facultado para suspender el servicio eléctrico de la parte Querellante habiendo transcurrido los 10 días del apercibimiento sobre la suspensión del servicio eléctrico." This means that Luma was authorized to suspend TraFon's service after the required notice period had passed.

Additionally, the court noted that while Luma had failed to provide a 48-hour automated notification before the suspension, this did not invalidate the earlier notifications. The court emphasized that TraFon's ongoing debt, which had not been disputed, justified the suspension of services. The court concluded, "La deuda de la parte Querellante ha continuado en ascenso desde que se emitió la primera carta por parte de LUMA," affirming that TraFon had not objected to the validity of the outstanding bills.

This ruling has significant implications for both TraFon and Luma Energy. For TraFon, it means they must address their outstanding debts or risk further service interruptions. For Luma, the decision reinforces their authority to suspend services when customers fail to meet payment obligations, provided they follow the legal notification protocols.

The court's decision also sets a precedent for future cases involving utility service suspensions in Puerto Rico. It clarifies the obligations of utility companies regarding notifications and the rights of customers in disputes over service interruptions. This ruling could influence how other companies manage their billing and notification processes, ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements.

Looking ahead, TraFon may consider appealing the court's decision, although the grounds for such an appeal would need to be carefully evaluated. There are no indications of related cases pending that would affect this ruling, but TraFon's situation highlights the ongoing challenges businesses face in managing utility costs and compliance with regulatory frameworks.