Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, Charles Faber and Karen Faber, filed suit against insurance agencies and related individuals, claiming insurance malpractice. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs responded that the limitation period was tolled because Charles could not reasonably have discovered the alleged insurance malpractice until a date within the limitations period because a reasonable person does not read his or her insurance policies. Summary judgment was entered for Defendants on grounds that Plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred under the three-year limitation period for insurance malpractice claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants were untimely. View "Faber v. McVay" on Justia Law

This certified question concerned an action pending in federal court in which Plaintiff alleged that he was illegally denied a promotion in the Providence Police Department. At issue in this proceeding was Plaintiff’s count claiming that Chief of Police of the Providence Police Department was liable, in his individual capacity, for the City’s failure to have promoted Plaintiff in violation of section 28-5-7-(6) of the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act. Clements moved to dismiss the count, arguing that section 28-5-7(6) does not provide for individual liability. The district court then certified to the Supreme Court the question at issue here. The Supreme Court answered that section 28-5-7(6) does not provide for the individual liability of an employee of a defendant employer. Remanded. View "Mancini v. City of Providence" on Justia Law

Defendant was in debt under a credit card account that he opened and maintained with Bank of America, N.A. Bank of America assigned the right to collect the debt to CACH, LLC, and CACH filed a complaint seeking to recover $10,288.04 from Defendant. After CACH filed a motion for summary judgment, Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision of the Cardholder Agreement entered into between Defendant and Bank of America. The hearing justice denied Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because he had failed to raise a right to arbitrate as an affirmative defense in his answer. The justice then granted summary judgment in favor of CACH. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the hearing justice did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration; and (2) the superior court did not err in granting CACH’s motion for summary judgment. View "CACH, LLC v. Potter" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Carmen Rohena, as parent and natural guardian of Josue Espinal, brought suit against Defendant, the City of Providence, to recover damages for injuries that Josue suffered while participating in a baseball game at Corliss Park, which was owned by Defendant. Defendant filed a motion to summary judgment, arguing that it was not liable pursuant to the Recreational Use statute. The superior court granted the motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant’s conduct fell outside the scope of the Recreational Use Statute because the City willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a known dangerous condition was not properly preserved for appeal. View "Rohena v. City of Providence" on Justia Law

Mark Furia was injured while working for Ajax Construction Company. After Furia filed a petition against Ajax in the Workers’ Compensation Court, Ajax petitioned the Workers’ Compensation Court to determine which insurer - Beacon Mutual Insurance Company or Liberty Mutual Insurance Company - was obligated to pay Furia’s claim. The trial judge concluded that Ajax was liable to Furia and that Beacon was primarily liable to Furia. The judge also found that Ajax had dual or overlapping coverage regarding Furia’s claim and, given the overlapping coverage, Liberty must reimburse Beacon for fifty percent of the benefits that Beacon paid to Furia. The Appellate Division vacated the trial judge’s decree and ordered that Beacon be held fully responsible for paying workers’ compensation benefits to Furia and to reimburse Liberty for any benefits paid to beacon by Liberty under the prior decree. The Supreme Court quashed the Appellate Division’s decree, holding that the Appellate Division erred in finding Beacon solely responsible for the payment of Furia’s benefits. View "Ajax Construction Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of first-degree child molestation and two counts of second-degree child molestation. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in denying his motion for a new trial due to the purported lack of credibility on the part of the complaining witness and his half-brother and inconsistencies in their testimonies concerning the alleged molestations. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgment of conviction, holding that the trial justice neither clearly erred nor overlooked or misconceived relevant evidence and that the trial justice properly denied Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Muralles" on Justia Law

The Zoning Officer for the Town of Hopkinton issued a notice of violation to Todd and Tina Sposato for being in violation of the Hopkinton Zoning Ordinance by having four alpacas on their property, which was located in an R-1 zone. The Zoning Board overturned the Zoning Officer’s ruling, concluding that alpacas are “domestic animals,” and therefore, keeping them on the property was a permitted use. Thereafter, the Zoning Board of Review of the Town of Hopkinton imposed four “conditions” on the Sposatos with respect to the continued presence of alpacas on the property. The fourth condition explicitly provided that “[t]he right to keep alpaca on this property does not run with the land; that is, if the [Sposatos] sell this property the next owners are not permitted to keep alpaca.” The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the superior court, holding that the last of the four conditions imposed upon the Sposatos by the Zoning Board was inconsistent with venerable and settled principles in the law of land use. View "Preston v. Zoning Board of Review of Town of Hopkinton" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and using a firearm when committing a crime of violence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err in (1) denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial on the grounds of inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies; (2) refusing to give an “empty chair” jury instruction due to a witness’s absence of trial; and (3) making certain evidentiary rulings challenged by Defendant. Further, Defendant’s argument that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors warranted reversal was without merit. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

In 2012, Bayal Restaurant Inc. entered into a lease agreement with the predecessor in interest to plaintiff to rent certain commercial property. Aly Diene (Defendant), in consideration of the lease, executed a personal guaranty. In 2013, title to the premises was conveyed to OSJ of Providence, LLC (Plaintiff). In conjunction with the conveyance, all rights of the seller were transferred to Plaintiff. After Bayal defaulted on the terms of the lease, Plaintiff demanded overdue rent, interest, and fees. When Plaintiff did not receive the full amount requested, Plaintiff filed a complaint for eviction for nonpayment of rent. The parties entered into a stipulated judgment, but Bayal failed to make any payments pursuant to the stipulated judgment. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for default on the guaranty. Summary judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff as to Defendant’s liability under the guaranty. After a hearing, judgment was entered for Plaintiff in the amount of $37,760.04. The Supreme Court denied Defendant’s appeal, holding (1) Plaintiff’s claim was not time-barred; and (2) the hearing justice properly granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. View "OSJ of Providence, LLC v. Diene" on Justia Law

A two-vehicle collision resulted in one of the automobiles striking Plaintiff while she was standing at her post as a crossing guard. Plaintiff sustained severe bodily injuries from the accident. Plaintiff filed suit against the two drivers, Chicara Alston and Rick Ford, alleging that each was negligent. As relevant to this appeal, the hearing justice granted Ford’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the hearing justice erred when he concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that the elements of the negligence claim were inappropriately treated as a matter of law because the facts suggested more than one reasonable inference, and therefore, summary judgment was inappropriately granted. View "Williams v. Alston" on Justia Law