On January 18, 2023, Sepulvado, Madonado & Couret obtained summary judgment dismissing the claims filed against the Missouri-based Monsanto Company, its Puerto Rico subsidiary, Monsanto Caribe, LLC, and an employee of the parent company that oversaw research and development projects, for alleged damages stemming from certain health conditions of a former employee. The dispute began over 10 years ago when the plaintiff, a Puerto Rico-trained agronomist, initially made an extrajudicial claim, and several years after obtaining thousands of pages of company documents, commenced an action in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan Part.
Plaintiff asserted she suffered from certain skin and respiratory conditions due to exposure to certain products allegedly manufactured by Monsanto Company.
Defendants moved for summary judgment based on their immunity as insured employers under the Puerto Rico Compensation System for Work-Related Accidents Act (“Act 45”). Plaintiff countered by raising two exceptions to the immunity granted by Act 45. First, that Monsanto Company allegedly fulfilled a dual role in the case because it was both the employer and a liable party as a manufacturer of the products. Second, she argued that the litigation should be allowed to move forward because the alleged injuries were produced by some unspecified intentional acts. Plaintiff moreover argued that she was entitled to perform discovery to develop these theories.
After further proceedings, the Court of Appeals rejected the “dual role” theory but ordered discovery on plaintiff’s “intentional acts exception” theory. A thorough discovery was conducted and briefing and oral arguments on the motions for summary judgment ensued.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the case explaining that, having conducted discovery, plaintiff could not point towards evidence that would aid her in establishing that defendants acted with the intent of harming her. As the Court pointed out, while plaintiff repeatedly asserted that defendants intentionally caused her alleged injury, she was unable to identify any evidence of such intent. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that, during discovery, plaintiff admitted that Monsanto Caribe provided thorough training on protective and work safety practices. The Court noted that, faced with these facts and other related information, plaintiff conceded her assertion about defendants’ intentions was merely speculative.
Lastly, the judgment rejected plaintiff’s last-ditch attempt to have the Court of First Instance establish a “new definition of intent” not previously recognized under Puerto Rico law. She argued that some decisions issued under the law of certain states were more lenient in terms of the burden that an employee must meet to sue an insured employer. However, the Court noted that those decisions adopted a doctrinal position that (1) has only been adopted in a small minority of U.S. jurisdictions; (2) has been subject to significant criticism; and (3) has been rejected in Puerto Rico as a matter of legislative action and judicial interpretation. Hence, the Court explained that, in the absence of any Puerto Rico statutory language or court decision that even mildly supported plaintiff’s position, her argument failed.
Firm attorneys involved in the case: Elaine M. Maldonado Matías, Albéniz Couret Fuentes, and Lee R. Sepulvado Ramos.