The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals recently confirmed a lower court's ruling regarding a dispute between Aerostar Airport Holdings, LLC and Airport Shoppes Corp. This decision, issued on May 13, 2026, is significant for the parties involved and could have broader implications for concession agreements at airports.

Aerostar Airport Holdings, LLC (Aerostar) filed an appeal against Airport Shoppes Corp. (AS) and Airport Catering Services, Corp. (ASC) after a lower court dismissed its declaratory judgment request. The case centers around a concession agreement that grants exclusive rights to sell food and beverages at the Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport. The court's decision clarifies the rights and obligations of the parties involved in the concession agreement.

The dispute began on October 22, 2024, when Aerostar filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment. Aerostar claimed that a concession agreement signed in 1984 granted Host International Inc. exclusive rights to sell food and beverages at the airport terminals, but this exclusivity did not apply to private airline-operated clubs. Aerostar later entered into a contract with CAVU Experiences LLC to open an Escape Lounge at the airport, which it argued did not violate the exclusivity rights of AS and ASC. However, AS and ASC threatened legal action against CAVU, claiming that the lounge infringed on their rights.

Aerostar sought a court declaration to confirm that AS and ASC had waived their exclusivity rights and that the Escape Lounge did not violate the concession agreement. In response, AS and ASC filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that there was no ambiguity in the concession agreement that warranted a declaratory judgment. The lower court agreed, leading to Aerostar's appeal.

The Court of Appeals reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's ruling. The court stated, "the concession agreement, despite several modifications over the years, remained clear that the appellees had an exclusivity right to sell food and beverages in all airport terminals." The judges emphasized that the exclusivity only ceded in cases of private airline-operated clubs, which did not apply to the Escape Lounge since it was open to any passenger willing to pay the admission fee.

In its ruling, the court concluded that Aerostar's request for a declaratory judgment was unnecessary, as the concession agreement was clear and did not contain ambiguities that required judicial clarification. The court stated, "there was no controversy regarding the rights of the appellees under the concession agreement that would allow for the declaratory mechanism to proceed."

This ruling has significant implications for future disputes involving concession agreements at airports. It reinforces the importance of clear contractual language and the need for parties to understand their rights and obligations under such agreements. The court's decision may deter similar claims in the future, as it establishes that courts may not entertain declaratory judgment requests when the underlying agreements are unambiguous.

Moving forward, Aerostar has the option to appeal this decision to a higher court, although details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence how concession agreements are interpreted and enforced in Puerto Rico and beyond.

Overall, the Court of Appeals' ruling in Aerostar Airport Holdings, LLC v. Airport Shoppes Corp. serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in contractual agreements and the legal ramifications that can arise when disputes occur.