Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, Defendant's employee, was traveling as a passenger in a pickup truck owned and operated by Defendant when the truck collided with another vehicle, resulting in injuries to Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued Defendant and Defendant's Insurer, alleging negligence. The trial justice granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, reasoning that because Plaintiff had collected workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained while traveling with Defendant on work-related business, the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act precluded double recovery. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff relinquished his right to sue Defendant in tort after accepting workers' compensation benefits based on the exclusivity provision of the Act. View "LaFreniere v. Dutton" on Justia Law

Dennis Gallagher was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, an occupational disease, and ultimately succumbed to the disease. A trial judge of the workers' compensation court entered decrees holding USGEN New England, Inc. (USGEN) liable to pay benefits to Dennis and to his wife, Maureen Gallagher, as Dennis's last employer under R.I. Gen. Laws 28-34-8. The appellate division of the workers' compensation court vacated those decrees and entered final decrees assessing liability against National Grid USA/Narragansett Electric (National Grid), USGEN's predecessor as owner of the plant where Dennis had worked and been exposed to asbestos. Maureen and National Grid each petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review the appellate division's final decrees. The Supreme Court issued both writs and consolidated the cases. The Court then affirmed, holding that the appellate division did not err in vacating the trial judge's decrees and in entering final decrees assessing liability against National Grid instead. View "Gallagher v. Nat'l Grid USA/Narragansett Elec." on Justia Law

This negligence and breach of contract action arose out of Plaintiff's fall in one of Defendant's stores. Plaintiff Maureen Habershaw appealed from the superior court's grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of Defendant, Michaels Stores. At issue on appeal was whether an allegation that a floor was shiny, standing alone, could withstand a challenge to a claim that a plaintiff was injured as a result of a dangerous condition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court did not err when it granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment because there was no issue of material fact about whether a dangerous condition existed at the time of Plaintiff's fall. To the contrary, the Court held, there was a complete absence of any evidence upon which Defendant's negligence could be established. View "Habershaw v. Michaels Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the driver of a motor vehicle, who is an adult but underage drinker, has a duty to protect third parties from the tortious conduct of an intoxicated individual he or she has agreed to transport, who is likewise an adult but underage drinker, by preventing that individual from subsequently operating a motor vehicle. The superior court found that no such duty existed in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the factual circumstances at hand, no such duty to third parties existed on the part of the defendant driver to prevent his intoxicated passenger from later operating his own motor vehicle. View "Gushlaw v. Milner" on Justia Law

This insurance-coverage dispute arose after a driver of a leased vehicle struck and seriously injured a pedestrian. The vehicle, a BMW, was owned by BMW Financial Services. The pedestrian and her family sued the driver and BMW Financial for damages. Citizens Insurance Company provided a personal automobile policy listing the driver as an insured and BMW Financial as an additional insured lessor. A separate business auto insurance policy was issued by Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Companies to BMW Financial. The case settled, with Citizens and Empire paying their policy limits. Citizens reimbursed Empire for a portion of the costs Empire expended in legal expenses defending BMW Financial in the civil action but refused to provide Empire with any further reimbursement. Empire subsequently filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a determination that Citizens was liable for reimbursement of all attorneys' fees it incurred. The superior court granted Empire's motion for summary judgment. Citizens appealed, arguing that Empire was entitled only to a pro-rata apportionment of defense costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that it would be improper to resort to a pro-rata apportionment of liability. View "Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Cos. v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am./Hanover Ins." on Justia Law

A young boy died after he trespassed onto plaintiff Corporation's property and played on industrial equipment. A settlement was eventually reached with the decedent's estate. Corporation thereafter filed suit against its Insurer, asserting that Insurer was liable to Corporation for the defense expenses it had incurred from the representation provided by Insurer's independent legal counsel. The superior court granted summary judgment for Insurer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Corporation was not entitled to have Insurer subsidize the engagement of independent counsel to represent Corporation in addition to the law firm that Insurer had hired to represent Corporation in connection with the fatal accident because there was no actual conflict between the prime interests of the Insurer and those of the Corporation since no civil action had been commenced when Corporation engaged independent counsel; and (2) Corporation's argument that Insurer ratified its engagement of independent counsel by not objecting to the fact that Corporation had engaged independent counsel was without merit. View "Quality Concrete Corp. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a diesel mechanic, brought suit against Defendant, his former employer, for damages to his tools that allegedly occurred after Defendant fired him. The superior court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff for $7,360 in damages. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err (1) by denying Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law, as Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence establishing the damages element of the negligence claim; (2) by permitting the testimony of a witness whose name was absent from the initial witness list, as the witness's appearance at trial could not have created an element of surprise or otherwise prejudiced Defendant; and (3) in calculating the damages. View "Hernandez v. JS Pallet Co." on Justia Law

In two civil actions, Plaintiffs in the underlying action alleged that Cheaters, Inc. and Cheaters Holding Corporation negligently and/or recklessly served alcoholic beverages to William Powers, who afterwards drove a vehicle off the premises and collided with other vehicles, resulting in one death and injuries to others. Before the accident, United National Insurance Corporation had issued an insurance policy to Cheaters and the Holding Corporation. Based on the policy's on-premises endorsement and liquor liability exclusion, United National disclaimed any responsibility for the defense and/or indemnification of the Holding Corporation. Plaintiff corporations then filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment as to their rights under the terms of the policy. The superior court hearing justice granted United National's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the on-premises endorsement, which limited coverage to on-premises losses only, applied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that coverage was barred by the on-premises endorsement. View "Cheaters, Inc. v. United Nat'l Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Town of North Providence hired Everett McCain and appointed him as a lineman in the communications division of the fire department. McCain subsequently sustained injuries during the performance of his duties. Accordingly, the Town rendered injured-on-duty (IOD) payments to McCain pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws 45-19-1. Later, the Town ceased making payments to McCain on the ground that McCain was not a "sworn firefighter" and, for that reason, was ineligible to collect IOD payments. McCain filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asserting his right to IOD benefits. The superior court denied the writ but granted declaratory relief in favor of McCain, concluding that McCain was qualified as a "firefighter" eligible to receive benefits under section 45-19-1. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, based on the clear and unambiguous language set forth in section 45-19-1(c), McCain met the definition of "firefighter" at the time of his injury for purposes of collecting IOD benefits under that statute. View "McCain v. Town of N. Providence" on Justia Law

Plaintiff James Casale was employed by Defendant City of Cranston when he was injured. During his incapacity, Plaintiff received injured-on-duty (IOD) benefits from the City. In accordance with its policy with Plaintiff, Plaintiff's insurer, Amica Mutual Insurance Company, tendered $100,000 in uninsured motorist benefits to Plaintiff minus the amount that the City paid to Plaintiff for IOD benefits. Plaintiff subsequently initiated this declaratory judgment action seeking a judicial determination that R.I. Gen. Laws 45-19-1.1, which requires that an employer be reimbursed out of the proceeds received from the third party, was inapplicable to his case and that the City was not entitled to reimbursement from uninsured motorist benefits Plaintiff recovered under the policy. The trial justice concluded that the City was not entitled to reimbursement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice correctly held that Defendant was not entitled to reimbursement for the IOD payments paid to Plaintiff; and (2) because Plaintiff did not collect any money from the tortfeasor, section 45-19-1.1 was inapplicable to this case. View "Casale v. City of Cranston" on Justia Law