Margarita Rubio Gonzalez, Etc. v. Media Elements, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- De Conway v. Lopez (1st Cir. 1993)
- Carmen Fragoso, A/K/A Carmen Fragoso De Conway v. Dr. Maria A. Lopez (1st Cir. 1993)
- De Conway v. Lopez (1st Cir. 1993)
- Munich American Reinsurance Co. v. Crawford (5th Cir. 1998)
- Sevigny v. Employers Insurance (1st Cir. 2005)
- Amsouth Bank (03-5517) First Tennessee Bank (03-5521) v. George Dale (1st Cir. 2004)
- First TN Bank v. Dale (6th Cir. 2004)
- Callon Petroleum Co. v. Frontier Insurance (5th Cir. 2003)
- Mercado-Boneta v. Administracion Del Fondo De Compensacion Al Paciente Ex Rel. Insurance Commissioner (1st Cir. 1997)
- Mercado Boneta v. Fernandez (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1996)
- Ernst & Young v. Depositors Economic Protection Corp. (District Court, D. Rhode Island 1994)
- Todd v. DSN Dealer Service Network, Inc. (District Court, D. Kansas 1994)
- Garcia v. Island Program Designer, Inc. (1st Cir. 1993)
- Costle v. Fremont Indemnity Co. (District Court, D. Vermont 1993)
- Doughty v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1993)
- Garcia v. Island Program (1st Cir. 1993)
- Barnhardt Marine Ins., Inc. v. New England Intern. Sur. of America, Inc. (5th Cir. 1992)
- Barnhardt Marine Insurance, Inc. v. New England International Surety of America, Inc., Hendrik Rienstra (5th Cir. 1992)
- Garcia v. Island Program Designer, Inc. (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1992)
- General Railway Signal Co. v. Corcoran (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1992)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
ORDER OF COURT
We grant the appellee’s motion to dismiss. The appellant did not oppose the motion; moreover, we agree with the ap-pellee that, in the circumstances presented by this case, federal abstention is appropriate under the doctrine of Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed. 1424 (1943). By enacting the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act, 26 L.P.R.A. § 4001 et seq., Puerto Rico has constructed a comprehensive framework for the liquidation of insolvent insurance companies and the resolution of claims against them. Continued federal litigation may disrupt Puerto Rico’s regulatory system in three significant ways: (1) by taking jurisdiction away from the “central administrative forum” in which Puerto Rico’s legislature intended to concentrate all “claims against the corporation being liquidated, a method that promotes the orderly adjudication of same,” Calderon v. Commonwealth Insurance Co., 111 D.P.R. 153 (1981); (2) by forcing the Puerto Rico Insurance Commissioner to dissipate the insolvent insurer’s funds litigating a claim that could be settled more efficiently in the administrative forum; and (3) by creating the risk that Puerto Rico and the federal court will adopt different interpretations of the policy term at issue here, thus defeating the Commonwealth’s interest in a consistent disposition of all claims against the insolvent insurer. See generally Martin Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Prudential Reinsurance Co., 910 F.2d 249 (5th Cir. 1990); Lac D’Amiante du Quebec v. American Home Assurance Co., 864 F.2d 1033 (3d Cir. 1988); Grimes v. Crown Life Insurance Co., 857 F.2d 699 (10th Cir. 1988); Law Enforcement Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Corcoran, 807 F.2d 38 (2d Cir. 1986). But see Bilden v. United Equitable Insurance Co., 921 F.2d 822 (8th Cir. 1990).
Appeal dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.