USCA1 Opinion
November 21, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 92-2363
No. 95-1531
SANTOS HUERTAS LABOY, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
DR. LUIS RODRIGUEZ GONZALEZ, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Lynch, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Watson, Senior Judge,* and
____________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge.
____________________
____________________
Rafael A. Oliveras Lopez de Victoria on brief for appellants.
____________________________________
Gladys E. Guemarez and Carlos A. Ramos on brief for appellees.
__________________ _______________
____________________
____________________
____________________
* Of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by
designation.
Per Curiam. Appellant Santos Huertas Laboy brought
__________
a malpractice action in the United States District Court for
the District of Puerto Rico against the physician allegedly
responsible for his mother's death and the physician's
insurance company. The insurance company was declared
insolvent and its responsibilities were assumed by appellee,
the Puerto Rico Miscellaneous Insurance Guaranty Association.
The district court held that appellant's claim against the
insurance company was time barred because the insurance
company was not notified of the claim within the policy
period. The physician's insurance policy was a "claims-made"
policy which only provides coverage for claims brought to the
attention of the insurer during the duration of the policy.
On appeal, appellant argues that the claims-made insurance
policy violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution and their counterparts in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Constitution.
Because appellant has no fundamental right to bring
a claim against the physician's insurance company and because
the claims-made policy at issue did not impair any other
fundamental right and did not invoke a suspect
classification, we apply a rational basis standard of
scrutiny.1 See LCM Enters. v. Town of Dartmouth, 14 F.3d
___ ___________ __________________
____________________
1. We need not decide whether there was the necessary "state
action" to underpin appellant's Constitutional challenge.
Assuming arguendo there was, we nonetheless affirm.
________
-2-
675, 679 (1st Cir. 1994). The claims-made insurance policy
will therefore withstand Constitutional challenge if it is
rationally related to a legitimate state interest and neither
arbitrary, unreasonable, nor irrational. City of Cleburne v.
________________
Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985). Both
__________________________
the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico and this court have found
that claims-made policies serve public interests. Torres v.
______
Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, 92 JTS 68 (1992)
________________________________________
(holding that claims-made policies do not violate public
policy); DiLuglio v. New England Ins. Co., 959 F.2d 355, 358
________ ____________________
(1st Cir. 1992) ("The elimination of 'claims-made' coverage
would exacerbate the existing crisis in professional
liability insurance coverage, or force significantly higher
premiums for assuming the increased risk"). We hold that the
claims-made policy satisfies rational basis scrutiny and
therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of
appellant's claim against the Puerto Rico Miscellaneous
Insurance Guaranty Association.
We have considered appellant's other arguments and
find them to be similarly without merit.
Affirmed. Costs to Appellee.
Affirmed. Costs to Appellee
____________________________
-3-
