[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                For the First Circuit

                                 ____________________

        No. 92-2089

                               VILMA E. RIVERA, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                           CORPORACION INSULAR DE SEGUROS,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


                   [Hon. Gilberto Gierbolini, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr, and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            David Efron on brief for appellants.
            ___________
            Efren T.  Irizarry Colon, Elisa M.  Figueroa-Baez and Law  Offices
            ________________________  _______________________     ____________
        Irizarry-Colon on brief for appellees.
        ______________


                                 ____________________

                                    July 30, 1993
                                 ____________________




















                      Per  Curiam.  Plaintiffs Vilma E. Rivera and Victor
                      ___________

            Otero  challenge  the  district  court's  decision  to  grant

            defendant Corporacion Insular  de Seguros's ("CIS's")  motion

            for judgment as a  matter of law, see Fed. R. Civ.  P. 50, on
                                              ___

            plaintiffs'  negligence claim.    Finding  no  error  in  the

            decision below, we affirm.

                      We  summarize only the  relevant facts.   This is a

            medical malpractice  case which plaintiffs brought  on behalf

            of their daughter  Vivian, who was injured  during childbirth

            as  a result  of a  doctor's  alleged negligence.   In  their

            original complaint, plaintiffs sued the doctor involved, CIS,

            the  hospital's  insurance   carrier,  and  several   unnamed

            insurance  companies.    Before  trial,  however,  plaintiffs

            settled with  the doctor.   Subsequently,  plaintiffs amended

            their  complaint to  state a  direct action  against  CIS for

            negligence, and the case then proceeded to trial against CIS.

            At the  close of the  evidence, CIS moved  for judgment  as a

            matter of law,  arguing that plaintiffs'  claim had not  been

            filed within the time specified in the policy.  Finding merit

            in  that argument,  the district  court  granted the  motion.

            This appeal followed. 

                      Plaintiffs' central contention is  that CIS, by not

            specifically pleading it, waived the affirmative defense upon

            which the district court relied  to grant the Rule 50 motion.

            We do not agree.   In its answer, CIS included the  following



                                         -2-
                                          2















            statement  under  the   heading  of  "Affirmative  Defenses":

            "[W]hatever  policy may ha[ve] been issued to [the hospital],

            if any, would be limited to its terms, clauses and conditions

            and by its limit of  coverage."  Plaintiffs were therefore on

            notice that CIS would defend on the basis of the terms of the

            policy,  and, having had the  policy in their possession well

            before the  trial  date, can  hardly claim  surprise at  CIS'

            reliance upon  its express terms  as support for its  Rule 50

            motion.  Cf.  Mitchell v. Jefferson County Bd.  of Educ., 936
                     ___  ________    ______________________________

            F.2d  539,  544  (11th Cir.  1991)  ("Liberal  pleading rules

            require a court  to determine whether a  plaintiff has notice

            that a defendant is relying on an unpled affirmative  defense

            and whether the plaintiff can legitimately claim surprise and

            prejudice   from    a   failure   to   plead    the   defense

            affirmatively.").    See   also  Valle  v.  Heirs   of  Julio
                                 ___   ____  _____      _________________

            Wiscovitch & The Globe Indemnity Co., 88 P.R.R. 84, 88 (1963)
            ____________________________________

            ("The purpose  of the rule [that affirmative defenses must be

            pleaded] is to  avoid surprises."); 5  Charles Alan Wright  &

            Arthur  R.  Miller,  Federal Practice  and  Procedure    1274
                                 ________________________________

            (1990) ("An  affirmative defense  may be  pleaded in  general

            terms  and will  be  held  to  be sufficient,  and  therefore

            invulnerable  to a  motion to  strike,  as long  as it  gives

            plaintiff  fair  notice  of the  nature  of  the defense.").1

                                
            ____________________

            1.  Plaintiffs rely upon  Valle, 88 P.R.R. at 88-89, to argue
                                      _____
            that CIS waived its defense under  Puerto Rico law.  In  that
            case, the court held that an allegation in an answer that the

                                         -3-
                                          3















            Accordingly, we  agree with  the district  court's conclusion

            that CIS did  not waive  the defense upon  which its Rule  50

            motion was based.  

                      Moreover,  having  carefully  reviewed  plaintiffs'

            remaining  arguments, we  find  each of  them  to be  without

            merit.    We   further  find  that  the  appeal  presents  no

            substantial  question,  and  we  therefore  deny  plaintiffs'

            motion for  oral argument  and summarily  affirm pursuant  to

            Local Rule 27.1.














                                
            ____________________

            insurance   "policy   `was  subject   to   the   clauses  and
            restrictions appearing therein,'" was  not sufficient to  put
            the plaintiff  on notice  that the  insurer would  assert the
            insured's "lack of  cooperation" as a defense at  trial.  Id.
                                                                      ___
            at 89.  The court  reasoned that, based on the aforementioned
            clause, the  insured  would have  no  way of  discerning  the
            specific defense the  insurer intended to use at  trial.  Id.
                                                                      ___
            at 88-89.  
                  The  instant case  does not,  however,  raise the  same
            notice concerns.   CIS stated as an  affirmative defense that
            its  liability was  limited by the  terms of the  policy.  At
            trial, CIS  argued simply that  a claim was not  filed within
            the  date specified  in the  policy.   As plaintiffs  had the
            policy well before trial, they cannot claim lack of notice of
            that defense.   In our view, therefore,  plaintiffs' reliance
            upon Valle is unavailing.  In any event, the requirements for
                 _____
            pleading affirmative defenses are procedural and,  therefore,
            depend on federal law, not Commonwealth law.

                                         -4-
                                          4