The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico recently granted summary judgment in favor of Liberty International Underwriters after determining that coverage was not created by waiver or estoppel for a claim first made six months before the policy period of a claims-made policy. In Galarza-Cruz v. Grupo Hima San Pablo Inc., the plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including the insured and Liberty, in connection with various claims under Title VII and multiple Puerto Rico labor laws.
In opposing Liberty’s motion for summary judgment, the insured claimed that Liberty did not timely raise the coverage defense and that Liberty’s past practices created the reasonable expectation that coverage would be granted so Liberty was estopped from denying coverage.
The record, as found by the court, reflected that the plaintiff first made the claim against the insured more than six months before the policy period, and thus the court enforced the plain language of the claims-made policy to find that because the claim was made six months before the policy period, there was no coverage. In rejecting the estoppel argument, the court found that Liberty’s assertion of its reservation of rights in its answer to the amended complaint was adequate notice to the insured. The court further dismissed the insured’s argument that the insured’s own practice of notifying Liberty of a claim only after the insured was served with a complaint somehow meant that Liberty was estopped from denying coverage despite the policy’s plain and unambiguous terms.
The court concluded its analysis by quoting the familiar principle, in the First Circuit and elsewhere, that it is not an “appropriate part of judicial business to rewrite contracts freely entered into between sophisticated business entities.”
©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.
Insights focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry.
Recent Posts
Editorial Contacts
Shareholder
Shareholder
Shareholder
Shareholder
