Puerto Rico's government sues private power company as chronic outages damage appliances
The civil lawsuit by the consumer affairs department says the Luma company, which oversees power transmission and distribution in Puerto Rico, was 'negligent' and is responsible for damages caused to consumer appliances by outages and power fluctuations.
It said the department has the authority to take cases to court to protect those affected by the company's 'inefficiency and lack of adequate service.'
The action was filed against the company as a whole since the law exempts Luma's employees and contractors from claims filed by customers under an immunity granted in 2021 by Puerto Rico's Energy Bureau.
The suit cited a recent Luma statement at a public hearing that the company has rejected 1,828 claims. 'It's time for Luma to be fully accountable to Puerto Rican consumers,' it said.
Luma said in a brief statement that it would treat the lawsuit with the seriousness and responsibility it deserves.
'Our commitment is to continue working for the benefit of our customers, despite the significant challenges we face in operating a fragile and deteriorating electrical system, which for years has lacked the necessary maintenance and investment,' it said.
The outages have damaged thousands of appliances ranging from air conditioners to refrigerators on the island of 3.2 million people with a 40% poverty rate.
The lawsuit comes months after Puerto Rico's governor promised to cancel Luma's contract, warning it would be a long and complex process.
Anger against Luma has been growing ever since it signed a contract with Puerto Rico's government in 2020.
Outages remain common after Hurricane Maria razed Puerto Rico's electric grid when it hit the island as a powerful Category 4 storm in September 2017. But the grid was already frail following a lack of investment and maintenance for decades by Puerto Rico's Electric Power Authority, which is struggling to restructure $9 billion in debt.
Two island-wide blackouts hit the island in recent months, including on New Year's Eve and during Easter Week.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
HIMS CLASS ACTION FILED: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Reminds Investors - A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Hims & Hers Health, Inc. (HIMS)
RADNOR, PA - August 3, 2025 ( NEWMEDIAWIRE ) - The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP ( ) informs investors that securities class action lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Hims & Hers Health, Inc. ('Hims & Hers') ( NYSE: HIMS ) on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Hims & Hers securities between April 29, 2025, and June 23, 2025, inclusive (the 'Class Period'). The lead plaintiff deadline is August 25, 2025. CONTACT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP: If you suffered Hims & Hers losses, you may CLICK HERE or copy and paste the following link into your browser: utm_source=NewMediaWire&utm_medium=PR You can also contact attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. by calling (484) 270-1453 or by email at [email protected]. DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED MISCONDUCT: The complaints allege that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Hims & Hers was engaged in the 'deceptive promotion and selling of illegitimate, knockoff versions of Wegovy that put patient safety at risk;' (2) as a result, there was a substantial risk that Hims & Hers' collaboration with Novo Nordisk would be terminated; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Please CLICK HERE to view our video or copy and paste this link into your browser: THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: Hims & Hers investors may, no later than August 25, 2025, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Hims & Hers investors who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more information. CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE CASE OR GO TO: ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country and around the world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and fiduciaries. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Jonathan Naji, Esq. (484) 270-1453 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 [email protected] May be considered attorney advertising in certain jurisdictions. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. View the original release on
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
LINE Investors Have Opportunity to Lead Lineage, Inc. Securities Fraud Lawsuit with the Schall Law Firm
LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug 3, 2025-- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Lineage, Inc. ('Lineage' or 'the Company') (NASDAQ: LINE ) for violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased the Company's securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Offering Documents issued in connection with its initial public offering ('IPO') conducted in July 2024, are encouraged to contact the firm before September 30, 2025. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at or by email at [email protected]. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Lineage suffered a weakening of demand as customers destocked excessive inventory and adjusted their businesses to changing consumer trends. The Company raised prices leading up to the IPO in an unsustainable manner. The Company failed to counteract its demand problems through marketing or its supposed competitive advantages. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Lineage, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. View source version on CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq. Office: 310-301-3335 [email protected] KEYWORD: UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA CALIFORNIA INDUSTRY KEYWORD: CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LEGAL SOURCE: The Schall Law Firm Copyright Business Wire 2025. PUB: 08/03/2025 03:24 PM/DISC: 08/03/2025 03:24 PM
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tesla ordered by Florida jury to pay $243 million in fatal Autopilot crash
By Jonathan Stempel and Abhirup Roy (Reuters) -A Florida jury on Friday found Tesla liable to pay $243 million to victims of a 2019 fatal crash of an Autopilot-equipped Model S, a verdict that could encourage more legal action against Elon Musk's electric vehicle company. The verdict is a rare win for victims of accidents involving Autopilot. Musk has been pushing to rapidly expand Tesla's recently launched robotaxi business based on an advanced version of its driver assistance software. Tesla shares fell 1.8% on Friday, and are down 25% this year. Jurors in Miami federal court awarded the estate of Naibel Benavides Leon, as well as her former boyfriend Dillon Angulo, $129 million in compensatory damages plus $200 million in punitive damages, according to a verdict sheet. Tesla was held liable for 33% of the compensatory damages, or $42.6 million. Jurors found the driver George McGee liable for 67%, but he was not a defendant and will not have to pay his share. "Tesla designed Autopilot only for controlled-access highways yet deliberately chose not to restrict drivers from using it elsewhere, alongside Elon Musk telling the world Autopilot drove better than humans," Brett Schreiber, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. "Today's verdict represents justice for Naibel's tragic death and Dillon's lifelong injuries," he added. Tesla said it will appeal. "Today's verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology," the company said. The plaintiffs had sought $345 million of damages. Their lawyers said the trial was the first involving the wrongful death of a third party resulting from Autopilot. IMPACT ON FUTURE CASES Tesla has faced many similar lawsuits over its vehicles' self-driving capabilities, but they have been resolved or dismissed without getting to trial. In June, a judge rejected Tesla's bid to dismiss the Florida case. Experts said Friday's verdict may spur more lawsuits, and could make future settlements more costly. "It's a big deal," said Alex Lemann, a law professor at Marquette University. "This is the first time that Tesla has been hit with a judgment in one of the many, many fatalities that have happened as a result of its Autopilot technology." The verdict could also impede efforts by Musk, the world's richest person, to convince investors that Tesla can become a leader in so-called autonomous driving for private vehicles as well as robotaxis it plans to start producing next year. As Tesla's electric vehicle sales fall, much of its nearly $1 trillion market value hinges on Musk's ability to pivot the company into robotics and artificial intelligence. DRIVER'S ROLE The trial concerned an April 25, 2019 incident where George McGee drove his 2019 Model S at about 62 mph (100 kph) through an intersection into the victims' parked Chevrolet Tahoe as they were standing beside it on a shoulder. McGee had reached down to pick up a cellphone he dropped on his car's floorboard and allegedly received no alerts as he ran a stop sign and stop light before hitting the victims' SUV. Benavides Leon was allegedly thrown 75 feet (23 meters) to her death, while Angulo suffered serious injuries. "We have a driver who was acting less than perfectly, and yet the jury still found Tesla contributed to the crash," said Philip Koopman, a Carnegie Mellon University engineering professor and expert in autonomous technology. "The only way the jury could have possibly ruled against Tesla was by finding a defect with the Autopilot software," he added. "That's a big deal." Tesla, in its statement, said McGee was entirely at fault. "To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash," the company said. "This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs' lawyers blaming the car when the driver - from day one - admitted and accepted responsibility."
