A recent federal decision out of Puerto Rico should catch the attention of insurers and public adjusters. In Mapfre Praico Insurance Company v. Reynolds, 1 the court dismissed an insurer’s negligence claims against a public adjuster and his companies, not because the allegations lacked merit, but because the claims were filed too late.
And not just late—too late by the unforgiving standard of Puerto Rico’s one-year statute of limitations for tort claims.
After Hurricane Maria, the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority presented a substantial claim to its insurer, MAPFRE. The public adjuster involved allegedly inflated damages, misrepresented licensing credentials, and pushed the claim toward policy limits far exceeding what MAPFRE believed was owed. After years of litigation, the underlying claim settled for a fraction of the demanded amount. MAPFRE then turned around and sued the adjuster and his companies for negligence, arguing that their conduct caused inflated litigation costs and unnecessary exposure.
The public adjuster defendants argued that MAPFRE knew of the alleged misconduct well before one year prior to filing suit. They pointed to MAPFRE’s own allegations about knowledge of licensing issues, awareness of inflated estimates, and even prior litigation positions asserting misconduct. In short, they argued that MAPFRE had long been on notice of a potential claim and that MAPFRE failed to file suit within the one-year limitations period.
MAPFRE responded with a more nuanced argument. It claimed that its cause of action did not accrue until the underlying litigation ended in December 2023, when it could finally quantify its damages and understand the full impact of the alleged misconduct. It relied on doctrines typically applied in legal malpractice cases, where claims often do not accrue until a final judgment is entered.
The court found that under Puerto Rico law, a tort claim accrues when the injured party knows, or should know, of the injury and the identity of the person who caused it. Not when damages are fully calculated. The court emphasized a principle that a plaintiff cannot wait for damages to reach their “final degree of development” before filing suit. Once you are on notice of a potential claim, the clock starts ticking.
In this case, the court found that MAPFRE had that notice well before the one-year period. Whether the trigger date was May 2022, July 2023, or November 2023, it did not matter. Each of those dates fell outside the permissible window. The complaint, filed in December 2024, was simply too late.
What makes this decision particularly instructive is what the court rejected. It rejected the idea that negligent misrepresentation claims should follow the accrual rules of legal malpractice. It rejected the notion that damages must be fully quantified before the statute begins to run.
There is a broader lesson here for both insurers and policyholders. In the heat of complex claims litigation, parties often focus on winning the underlying dispute and assume that related claims can be sorted out later. This case is a reminder that the law does not always allow that luxury. Statutes of limitation operate independently of litigation strategy, and they do not pause simply because a case is ongoing.
For public adjusters, the decision underscores the scrutiny their work can face long after a claim is submitted. Claims of misconduct can be without merit but may cost dearly to defend. I suggest public adjusters carry significant malpractice coverage. For insurers, it highlights the importance of acting promptly when misconduct is suspected.
The court did not say MAPFRE’s claims lacked substance or were meritless. It said MAPFRE waited too long to bring them. In litigation, timely filing suit is the first step.
Thought For The Day
“The law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their rights.”
— Latin maxim, Vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit
1 Mapfre Praico Ins. Co. v. Reynolds, No. 3:24-cv-01557 (D.P.R. Mar. 26, 2026). See also, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.