The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals recently ruled on a significant case involving insurance claims related to damages caused by Hurricanes Irma and María. The case, Villa Blanca Ltd, Almaco Capital, Corp., Attenure Holdings Trust 2 Y HRH Property Holdings, LLC v. Mapfre Praico Insurance Company (Docket TA2026AP00120), addresses the responsibilities of insurance companies when handling claims from natural disasters. The ruling impacts multiple parties, including the appellants who sought compensation for their losses and the insurance company that managed the claims.
This case is particularly important as it highlights the ongoing challenges faced by property owners in Puerto Rico following the devastating hurricanes that struck the region in 2017. Many property owners have struggled to receive adequate compensation for their losses, and this ruling may set a precedent for future insurance claims in similar situations.
The parties involved in the case include Villa Blanca Ltd, Almaco Capital Corp., Attenure Holdings Trust 2, and HRH Property Holdings LLC (collectively referred to as the appellants) and Mapfre Praico Insurance Company (the appellee). The appellants filed a lawsuit against Mapfre in September 2019, claiming breach of contract and seeking a declaratory judgment regarding their insurance policy. They alleged that Mapfre failed to pay the full amount owed for damages caused by Hurricane María, despite acknowledging that the property suffered significant damage.
The dispute arose after the appellants claimed that Mapfre undervalued the extent of the damages during the claims process. They sought a total of $2,428,638.14 in compensation, minus any applicable deductibles and prior payments made by Mapfre. The case progressed through the judicial system, culminating in a trial held in October 2025.
During the trial, the appellants presented various witnesses, including engineers and insurance adjusters, to support their claims. However, Mapfre countered with its own experts who argued that the damages were not as extensive as claimed and that the company had acted within the terms of the insurance policy.
On December 9, 2025, the lower court issued a ruling that partially favored the appellants, awarding them $118,256.54 for damages recognized by Mapfre. However, the court also dismissed the bulk of the appellants' claims, stating that they did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that Mapfre acted in bad faith or failed to meet its contractual obligations. The court emphasized that the evidence presented by Mapfre was more credible than that of the appellants.
The court ruled, "Villa Blanca did not present any evidence that would lead to conclude that the insurer failed to comply with its obligations during the management of the claim."
Following the lower court's ruling, the appellants filed an appeal, seeking to overturn the decision and contest the awarding of costs to Mapfre. They argued that the lower court erred in its evaluation of the evidence and in denying their request for additional damages, including interest and attorney fees. The appellants also claimed that the court had improperly excluded testimony from several witnesses shortly before the trial began.
The Court of Appeals, presided over by Judges Brignoni Mártir, Salgado Schwarz, and Aldebol Mora, reviewed the case and ultimately upheld the lower court's decision. The court confirmed that Mapfre had acted in accordance with the terms of the insurance policy and had made a reasonable offer based on the damages assessed. The ruling noted that the appellants did not demonstrate that Mapfre's actions constituted bad faith or negligence.
The court stated, "The evidence presented by the appellants did not substantiate the extensive damages claimed, nor did it meet the contractual obligations set forth in the insurance policy."
This ruling has significant implications for future insurance claims in Puerto Rico, particularly in the aftermath of natural disasters. It reinforces the importance of providing credible evidence when filing claims and highlights the responsibilities of insurance companies to act in good faith while processing claims. Property owners who face similar situations may need to ensure they have thorough documentation and expert testimony to support their claims.
Moving forward, this ruling may influence how insurance companies handle claims related to natural disasters, as well as how courts interpret the obligations of insurers under the law. The decision also underscores the need for clear communication and documentation between policyholders and insurance providers to avoid disputes in the future.
As for the appellants, they may still seek further legal recourse, including the possibility of appealing the ruling to a higher court. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing.