Andrew Bravo v Ria Thompson and Pan American Life Insurance Company of Trinidad and Tobago; Ria Thompson v Rudolph Bravo

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Quinlan-Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 08 September 2025
• Neutral Citation: TT 2025 HC 289
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: Suit No: CV2023-03035

Andrew Bravo

and

Ria Thompson and Pan American Life Insurance Company of Trinidad and Tobago

Ria Thompson

and

Rudolph Bravo

Reid, J.

Suit No.: CV2021-02897

High Court

Appearances:

Claimant: Dons Waithe instructed by Alan Anderson.

Defendant/Ancillary Claimant: Sterling John instructed by Samantha Olivier.

Ancillary Defendant not appearing and unrepresented.

INTRODUCTION

THE CLAIMANT'S CASE

Reid, J.

1 On 1 September, 2021, the Claimant initiated this claim against the First and Second Defendants. He claimed for fraud and “breach of guardianship” against the First Defendant; breach of fiduciary duty against the Second Defendant and negligence against both Defendants. He claims that his deceased mother, Nicolette Bravo (“Nicolette”), had an annuity with the Second Defendant, which the First Defendant wrongfully terminated with the assistance of an agent of the Second Defendant; that the First Defendant collected the proceeds of the same for her own use and benefit; and wrongly retained Nicolette's white Nissan Blue Bird Sylphy motor vehicle registered as PCT 9401 (the “motor vehicle”), refusing to give it to him.

2 Nicolette died intestate on 8 September, 2017. At the time of her death, Nicolette was divorced and was not in any common law relationship. The Claimant is Nicolette's only child and the First Defendant is Nicolette's sister and the Claimant's aunt.

3 On 16 March, 2023, the Claimant sought and was granted leave to discontinue the claim against the Second Defendant. His claim proceeded to trial against the First Defendant only.

4 In his Statement of Case, the Claimant averred as follows:

• i. Nicolette had a Basic Flexible Payment Retirement Annuity Plan no. 3459960 with the Second Defendant (“the annuity”). The effective date of the annuity was 1 August, 2012 with a retirement date of 1 August, 2052 and had a $300.00 monthly premium. The Claimant was listed as the annuitant thereon.

• ii. After Nicolette died, the Claimant was invited to a meeting with the First Defendant and an agent of the Second Defendant where the First Defendant and the agent represented to him that his signature was required to secure money to assist the household. After this meeting, the First Defendant and the agent refused/neglected to disclose to the Claimant the existence of Nicolette's annuity and the benefits to which he was entitled. The First Defendant had wrongfully terminated Nicolette's annuity with the agent's assistance when they both ought to have known that he was competent to take conduct of his mother's estate as he was 17 years old at the time.

• iii. The First Defendant, with the assistance of an agent of the Second Defendant, wrongly opened two other annuities each valued at $250,000.00 in the name of the Claimant listing the First Defendant as the beneficiary, which caused the Claimant to fear for his life.

• iv. During his minority and without the Claimant's knowledge or consent, the First Defendant obtained an order dated 26 February, 2019 for maintenance against the Ancillary Defendant (the Claimant's father), on which the Claimant relies to show that the First Defendant was motivated by personal gain.

• v. The First Defendant refused to surrender the motor vehicle to the Claimant after Nicolette's death and refused to account for the monies received by her on behalf of Nicolette's estate.

5 He particularises the following claims against the First Defendant:

• i. Breach of guardianship –

  • a. There is an implied term of the guardianship that the First Defendant would preserve and be constantly ready with correct accounts of all her dealings and transactions in the course of her guardianship.

  • b. The First Defendant failed to account for all sums received and due to the Claimant.

  • c. The First Defendant failed to keep money she received on behalf of the Claimant separate from her own funds.

  • d. The First Defendant failed to provide the Claimant with proper accounts of all her dealings during the guardianship.

• ii. Breach of Fiduciary Duties –

  • a. The pleadings in relation to this all relate to the Second Defendant only.

• iii. Negligence –

  • a. The First Defendant failed to ensure the Claimant took possession of the motor vehicle, which gave rise to a presumption of negligence.

    (The particulars of negligence relating to the annuity, however, were against the Second Defendant only.)

• iv. Fraud –

  • a. The First Defendant claimed that the Claimant was only entitled to a little bit of money from the sums held by the Second Defendant, which they both knew to be false.

6 By way of relief, the Claimant claimed for:

• i. “General damages for grave mental distress and inconvenience which had been exacerbated by the First and Second Defendants' failure to disclose details about the Deceased's estate even though the Claimant was 19 years of age;

• ii. A declaration that the two annuities currently enforced with the Second Defendant with contract numbers 3523458 and 3523459 respectively taken out by the First Defendant as beneficiary be set aside, cancelled or declared to be null and void and of no effect;

• iii. A declaration that the proceeds of the aforementioned annuities be paid in full to the Claimant without any off setting;

• iv. Alternatively, if the Court order that the deductions arise from setting aside the policies, the First Defendant should compensate the Claimant for any such deductions;

• v. An account of all sums disbursed by the Second Defendant to the First Defendant arising from a Flexible Payment Retirement Annuity with a Contract Number 3459960 along with an effective date of 01 August, 2012 and Retirement date of 01 August, 2052 wherein the Claimant was declared as the Annuitant and his deceased mother Nicolette Bravo was the owner who died on 8 October, 2017 leaving the Claimant as the next of kin and sole beneficiary of the said annuity;

• vi. An account of all sums disbursed by the Second Defendant to the First Defendant arising from the Deceased's work benefits or any grants advanced to the First Defendant for the burial of the Deceased;

• vii. A declaration that the First and/or Second Defendants are not entitled to retain any sum in respect of commission that might otherwise have been due upon all sums found to have been received on the taking of the account;

• viii. A declaration that the First Defendant to give a full and proper account for all monies paid out of the estate of Nicolette Bravo and/or due and payable to the estate of Nicolette Bravo;

• ix. An order for the payment by the First and/or Second Defendant to the Claimant of the amount found due on the taking of the account;

• x. Damages against the First and Second Defendants;

• xi. Interest against the First and Second Defendant;

• xii. Costs;

• xiii. Such further relief that the Court deem just and expedient.”

THE FIRST DEFENDANT'S CASE

7 The First Defendant denied the Claimant's averments of negligence, fraud and breach of her guardianship duties.

8 Her Defence averred as follows:

• i. Nicolette was her sister and she is the Claimant's aunt. When she commenced family proceedings FH 00874/2018 against the Ancillary Defendant, the Claimant was 16 years old and in Form 3 at the Queen's Royal College (“QRC”). At that time, she was the Claimant's sole caregiver without any assistance from the Ancillary Defendant. She had expressed to the Claimant her intention of initiating legal proceedings against his father for maintenance and the Claimant was agreeable to this.

• ii. Before her death, Nicolette had obtained a maintenance order against the Ancillary Defendant, but the Ancillary Defendant never complied with the Court's orders. After Nicolette died, the Ancillary Defendant abandoned the Claimant and all parental responsibilities and maintenance fell to the First Defendant, while she also had to care for her own biological son.

• iii. The First Defendant approached the Court for legal guardianship of the Claimant in 2018 and attempted to enforce the maintenance order against the Ancillary Defendant which proved futile. She had to care for the Claimant without assistance from the Ancillary Defendant and with limited financial resources. This placed her in a financially precarious position. Her salary after tax was $6,060.00 and from this, she had to pay rent of $4,000.00 per month, maintain herself, the household, her son and the Claimant.

• iv. Prior to Nicolette's death, they had all lived together for about eight years sharing the rental expense of $6,000.00. However, after Nicolette's death, she was constrained to seek cheaper accommodation and moved to another apartment at Bamboo Trace, Santa Cruz in December 2017.

• v. The First Defendant explained to the Claimant that her ability to meet basic needs and the ability for the Claimant to continue training as a competitive runner would be adversely affected without his father's assistance or financial aid and the Claimant understood this. Therefore, in order to maintain the Claimant and make ends meet, the First Defendant borrowed monies from a confidant whilst she was awaiting Nicolette's death benefit and/or settlement from the court proceedings with the Ancillary Defendant in order to maintain the Claimant.

• vi. The First Defendant was granted guardianship over the Claimant and obtained an order for maintenance against the Ancillary Defendant, with which he has never complied. She was left with no choice but to draw on some of the money from the death benefit she was paid from Nicolette's life insurance policy for the Claimant's maintenance. The Ancillary Defendant had not paid her legal costs in the family proceedings and she could not replace the sum of $30,000.00 which she had used towards that venture.

• vii. The First Defendant received a payment of $980,540.00 from Nicolette's life insurance policy No. 0090240000 with the Second Defendant, which had an effective date of 6...