Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Plaintiff, a professional limousine driver, was injured when he was struck by a car while unloading luggage from a limousine at an airport. Plaintiff reached settlements with his employer's insurance company and the driver whose car struck him but remained less-than-fully compensated for his injuries. Plaintiff subsequently filed an underinsured-motorist claim with his Insurer under the terms of his personal automobile policy. Insurer denied the claim, citing two exclusions from the policy's provisions for uninsured-motorist coverage. Plaintiff filed suit, and the superior court ruled that the exclusions were void on grounds of public policy. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that Insurer's denial of coverage was both lawful and not inconsistent with public policy. Remanded. View "Henderson v. Nationwide Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The insurance coverage dispute at issue in this appeal stemmed from a civil action brought by Ronald and Mildred Destremps against Viking Stone for allegedly damaging property. At the time, Viking Stone was insured by Employers, the plaintiff in the instant case. Arbella, the defendant in the instant case, had previously provided insurance coverage to Viking Stone. Employers filed a petition for declaratory judgment in superior court, seeking a declaration (1) that Arbella owed a duty to defend and indemnify Viking Stone in connection with the Destrempts' complaint, and (2) that the facts claimed in the Destrempts' complaint triggered one occurrence under the Arbella policy and that, for that reason, no coverage was afforded to Viking Stone under the Employers policy. The superior court granted Employers' motion for partial summary judgment, and Arbella appealed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that genuine issues of material fact precluded the grant of summary judgment. Remanded. View "Employers Mut. Casualty Co. v. Arbella Protection Ins. Co." on Justia Law

While traveling in a vehicle insured by Travelers Insurance, Wayne DeMarco was injured in a collision. DeMarco filed a personal injury action against Travelers. The trial court entered judgment in favor of DeMarco for $2,801,939, including interest. DeMarco then commenced the instant civil action against Travelers in the superior court, demanding, inter alia, (1) a declaratory judgment ordering Travelers to pay the entire judgment from the personal injury litigation above and beyond the $1 million policy limits, and (2) a declaratory judgment pursuant to the rejected settlement offer statute requiring Travelers to pay interest on the entire amount. The superior court granted partial summary judgment in favor of DeMarco, holding (1) Travelers was liable to DeMarco for the entire judgment even in a multiple claimant context, and (2) the rejected settlement offer statute was unambiguous in providing that an insurer is liable for interest due on a judgment where it has rejected a plaintiff's written offer to settle within the policy limits. On appeal, the Supreme Court (1) vacated the grant of partial summary judgment as to Travelers' liability, but (2) affirmed the ruling with respect to the applicability of the rejected settlement offer statute. Remanded. View "DeMarco v. Travelers Ins. Co." on Justia Law