Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned the applicability of an assault and/or battery exclusion in a commercial general liability insurance policy. Great American E&S Insurance Company filed a declaratory-judgment action against its insured, End Zone Pub & Grill of Narragansett, Inc. and Defendant Michael Gondusky. Gondusky previously had filed a civil suit against End Zone alleging that he had been seriously injured by two doormen who were employed by End Zone. The Superior Court entered both an order granting Great American's motion for summary judgment and a declaratory judgment decreeing that Great American "owe[d] no duty to defend or obligation to indemnify relative to the underlying action brought by Michael Gondusky against End Zone * * *." Gondusky appealed the Superior Court’s judgment. This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not summarily be decided. After considering the parties' written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, the Court concluded that cause had not been shown and that this case could be decided without further briefing or argument. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. View "Great American E&S Ins. Co. v. End Zone Pub & Grill of Narragansett, Inc. " on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court concerned the extent of uninsured motorist coverage provided under an automobile insurance policy issued to a husband and wife who were both injured by an uninsured motorist while riding their motorcycle. The husband, Leo Fontaine, died as a result of his injuries. The motorcycle in question was not expressly identified in the policy at issue. Plaintiff-Insurer New London County Mutual Insurance Company (NLC) filed suit for declaratory relief seeking clarification of the rights and obligations of the parties pursuant to their policy issued to the couple. Arguing that the policy language unambiguously excluded the defendants' claim for uninsured motorist benefits, NLC filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the Superior Court. Defendants Karolyn Fontaine, individually and on behalf of the estate of her husband, Leo appealed the grant of summary judgment and contended that the pertinent policy provision was ambiguous and should have been construed in favor of coverage. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the policy language explicitly excluded Defendants' claims from coverage. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the superior court's judgment. View "New London County Mutual Ins. Co. v. Fontaine" 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.

This appeal concerned the 2003 fire that occurred at the Station nightclub, wherein one hundred people died. The nightclub was co-owned by Plaintiffs, Michael and Jeffrey Derderian. A grand jury returned separate criminal indictments against Plaintiffs on charges of involuntary manslaughter. Prior to the fire, Essex Insurance Company had issued an insurance policy to Michael. Plaintiffs demanded, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws 12-28-5 and the policy, that Essex afford them a defense against the criminal prosecutions. When Essex refused, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Essex, seeking a declaratory judgment that the grand jury indictments against them constituted a suit as defined in the Essex policy and that, accordingly, Essex had a duty to provide them with a defense in the related criminal proceedings. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Essex. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the language of the policy clearly showed that the parties' intention when entering into the contract was that Essex would provide Plaintiffs with a defense only in civil proceedings in which bodily injury or property damage were alleged, and therefore, Essex had no duty to defend Plaintiffs in their criminal prosecutions.

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.

When Plaintiffs' efforts to act as general contractors on a new home foundered because of faulty work performed by a framing subcontractor, they made a claim on the homeowner's insurance policy issued to them by Defendant, Peerless Insurance Company. After Defendant denied the claim, citing two exclusions in the policy, Plaintiffs filed a declaratory-judgment action against the carrier. A hearing justice determined that the terms of the policy were ambiguous. Consequently, the hearing justice construed the policy against the insurer and entered judgment for the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not err when she determined that the policy was ambiguous; and (2) Plaintiffs were entitled to coverage for the repairs that were necessary to bring their home into compliance with the applicable building code.

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.

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.

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.

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.