Although many insurance policies or similar contractual agreements can often be long and tedious to read through, it is essential that you, as the policyholder, understand the obligations that you are bound to by entering into the agreement, as well as what the other party has agreed to. This way, you are more likely to know when you can invoke specific clauses of an agreement and defend yourself when issues arise.

In a recent Rhode Island Supreme Court opinion, the court considered whether a couple was entitled to receive a subsequent appraisal of damage to their property in addition to compensation for damage incurred. The plaintiffs, who were insured by the defendant, notified the defendant of water damage to their home that was the result of snow that had accumulated on the roof. The plaintiffs submitted a claim to the defendant, which detailed the damage. Shortly after, the plaintiffs received a check for $14,549, which they cashed. More than a year later, the plaintiffs requested an appraisal for the original loss, which was rejected by the defendants because the plaintiffs failed to dispute the scope of payment, more than a year had elapsed, and the claim was categorized as resolved. The plaintiffs sued the defendant, claiming that the denial of the claim constituted a breach of their insurance contract.

On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision to enter summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Because the plaintiffs delayed their request for an appraisal, the Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court’s analysis that the plaintiffs had waived any right they may have had to a subsequent appraisal. In addition, because the plaintiffs waited over 600 days before attempting to invoke the appraisal clause of their insurance policy, the Supreme Court held that the request was untimely and the defendant was not bound to pay since the agreement had a 180-day requirement.

In Rhode Island, courts tend to interpret the contested terms of an insurance policy the same way they evaluate the construction of contracts in general. When parties consent to be bound in any type of agreement, each party in the contract is “bound to proceed reasonably and in good faith toward the completion of the contemplated performance.” Rhode Island law states, however, that if a party breaches the contract, this also justifies the non-breaching party’s decision to not deliver on its contractual obligations.

Do You Need a Rhode Island Attorney for a Real Estate or Insurance Dispute?

If you are dealing with a dispute with an insurer in Rhode Island or involved in a tenuous real estate deal, contact the attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC for assistance today. Our lawyers have years of experience representing clients in all types of Rhode Island real estate lawsuits and insurance disputes and will provide you with the support and advocacy you need to pursue your claim with ease. To schedule a free consultation, contact us at 401-300-4055.

As an insured person who has recently suffered a devastating loss that would result in a property insurance claim, the client is often in an extremely vulnerable and unfavorable position to express their rights under the insurance policy and demand what they are entitled to. Insurance companies know this and will often deny coverage unjustly or make extremely reduced offers to vulnerable clients who need a payout immediately. While the ethics of this practice is certainly questionable, when taken to its extreme, insurance company tactics can have legal implications that all their clients should be aware of.

When the insurance company game of hardball goes from unkind to unethical or illegal, is when a Rhode Island bad faith insurance claim can come into play. Insurance companies have a fiduciary duty to act in the insured’s best interests, which includes a duty to seriously consider a plaintiff’s reasonable settlement demand. An insurance company that wrongfully denies a claim can be sued by their client for acting in bad faith. Insurers can be held accountable for declining to settle a valid claim or for otherwise failing to adequately perform their duties under the insurance contract. A plaintiff who successfully pursues a bad faith claim against their insurance company may be entitled to the original damages under the claim, as well as punitive damages against the insurance company as well as attorney’s fees.

Even the threat of the extensive damages permitted under bad faith claims can act to rein in insurance companies from unethical behavior before it occurs. Retaining a qualified Rhode Island insurance attorney early in the claim process can protect an insured client from abusive insurance company tactics, helping them obtain a full and fair settlement to the client without the hardship of a protracted legal battle.

Protecting Your Rights With a Rhode Island Insurance Attorney

If you or a loved one is anticipating a homeowners or other property insurance claim as a result of an accident or other loss, being prepared with a qualified Rhode Island insurance attorney by your side from the start can ensure that you are treated fairly by the insurance company. If a dispute with an insurance company has already gone off the rails and you have been denied a valid claim or subjected to unreasonable delays or other tedious requests in an attempt to get you to accept an insufficient settlement, you may have a bad faith claim against the insurance company. The Experienced Rhode Island insurance attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo understand how to assert our client’s rights and have successfully won substantial damage awards on behalf of our clients, and we are willing to help you too. Contact our offices today at 401-300-4055 to schedule a free consultation and discuss your case.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was injured in a slip and fall accident while at a restaurant that was insured by the defendant. He filed an initial lawsuit against the restaurant owner within the three-year statute of limitations. The plaintiff’s initial complaint was eventually dismissed because the plaintiff failed to have the defendant properly served under the state requirements. Although the defendant insurance company was not officially a party to the plaintiff’s initial lawsuit, the restaurant owner defendant was represented in the proceedings by attorneys retained by the insurance company.

After his initial complaint was dismissed, the plaintiff refiled his lawsuit against the restaurant owner, and ultimately joined the insurance company in the suit. However, this was not until after the three-year statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff justified the timing of the filing based on a Rhode Island law that the courts refer to as the” savings statute,” which gives a plaintiff an additional year to refile a complaint after it has been dismissed on specific procedural grounds. The second trial court rejected the plaintiff’s justification, holding that because the insurance company was not a party to the original suit, the savings statute did not apply. As a result of this ruling, the plaintiff’s second suit was dismissed, leading him to appeal the ruling to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

On appeal, the high court found that although the insurance company was not a party to the initial lawsuit, the appearance of the insurance company’s legal team to defend the restaurant in the initial proceedings made it so the insurance company was not a stranger to the litigation. Thus, the court held that the savings statute was applicable, and extended the statute of limitations for the plaintiff’s claim. As a result of the ruling by the Rhode Island Supreme Court, the plaintiff’s claim will be sent down to the lower court to proceed toward a settlement or trial.

Skilled Legal Representation Can Make the Difference in Rhode Island Insurance Claims

If you or a loved one is seeking to file a Rhode Island insurance claim, obtaining qualified legal counsel as soon as possible can make the difference between a substantial settlement and a dismissed case. While some laws exist to protect plaintiffs who may not have filed their case properly before the statute of limitations has expired, it is important to retain a Rhode Island insurance attorney who can ensure that necessary procedures are followed correctly from the start. The Rhode Island insurance attorneys with Bilodeau Capalbo are experienced in handling personal injury and other insurance cases and disputes. Contact our offices at 401-300-4055 today to schedule a consultation with a Rhode Island insurance attorney at Bilodeau Capalbo.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case was severely injured after slipping and falling while crossing an icy pathway outside the home he rented from the defendant. Claiming that the landlord negligently failed to maintain the surroundings, the plaintiff sued for damages on two theories. First, the plaintiff argued that the landlord negligently caused his injuries by failing to safely remove the snow and ice from the driveway and access to the home. After a jury trial on this issue, it was found that that the plaintiff’s own negligence in failing to avoid the fall outweighed the landlord’s negligence, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief.

In addition to the negligence claim, the plaintiff made other claims based on contract law, alleging that the landlord violated the implied warranty of habitability of the premises by failing to safely remove the snow and ice from the premises. In a pretrial ruling, the trial judge found that the plaintiff would be unable to pursue this cause of action against the landlord, and the plaintiff was denied relief before the jury addressed the claim. The plaintiff appealed the pretrial rulings to the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

On appeal, the high court agreed with the trial court’s ruling, holding that the implied warranty of habitability is based on the law of contract, and can be used to reduce or eliminate rent that is owed by a tenant who must live in premises determined to be uninhabitable, but the warranty does not provide for damages resulting from injuries. Furthermore, the high court ruled that the implied warranty of habitability was not violated in this case, as the alleged failure to safely remove snow and ice from the premises did not render the apartment uninhabitable. As a result of the jury’s ruling on negligence at trial and the high court’s agreement with the trial court’s reasoning in rejecting the other theories of liability before trial, the plaintiff will not be compensated for the injuries he suffered in the fall.

Determining a Legal Strategy for Landlord/Tenant and Personal Injury Claims

If you are facing a landlord-tenant issue related to an unsafe condition or injury claim, there are many legal strategies that may be taken to pursue or defend a claim. Having the assistance of an experienced Rhode Island landlord-tenant attorney with knowledge of personal injury and insurance law will provide you with invaluable peace of mind. The qualified real estate lawyers with Bilodeau Capalbo also have experience handling injury and insurance cases, and can help you with claims involving multiple areas of law to pursue a favorable result. Call our offices at 401-300-4055 to talk to a Rhode Island landlord-tenant attorney at Bilodeau Capalbo today.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was a homeowner who purchased an insurance policy from the defendant. In May of 2017, the plaintiff’s water heater ruptured and caused flood damage to their home. Believing that the damage was covered by the homeowner’s policy, the plaintiff made a claim with the defendant which was denied. The plaintiff sued the defendant in district court, alleging that the policy included coverage for damage from the incident. The district court reviewed the insurance policy and determined that the text of the policy included an exclusion for water damage caused by a malfunctioning appliance in the dwelling and determined that the defendant was justified in denying the plaintiff’s claim.

The plaintiff appealed the ruling to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, pointing to language in the policy providing coverage for sudden, accidental, and direct physical loss caused by fire, explosion, or theft resulting from a flood or other water-related incident. The plaintiff claimed that the damage caused to their home should be covered under this provision, as the water heater exploded prior to the flooding. The high court denied the plaintiff’s arguments, finding that the clear and unambiguous language within the policy excluded any water damage resulting from a defective or malfunctioning appliance, and that the provision affording coverage to damage incident to flooding did not afford coverage for the type of damage reflected in the plaintiff’s claim.

Here, because the plaintiff’s insurance policy did not include coverage for water damage resulting from a defective appliance, he was unable to recover any compensation from their insurance company for the loss. Had the plaintiff’s purchased an insurance policy that included coverage for such damage, his claim would most likely have been paid at the outset, and he would have avoided fruitless litigation and expense. For these reasons, homeowners should carefully review the coverage amounts and exclusions in their insurance policy, and purchase a policy that includes as much coverage as they can reasonably afford. In the event of an accident, disaster, or other incident resulting in damages and loss, homeowners with more comprehensive insurance policies will be better compensated and find themselves in a more favorable position to repair and rebuild their property and recover from the loss.

Contact a Dedicated Rhode Island Insurance Dispute Lawyer for Immediate Assistance

If you or a loved one is having a dispute with an insurance company over a homeowner’s claim, the issue of what is covered is not always cut and dry. Insurance companies will often deny a claim for damage that should be covered by the policy, leaving homeowner’s in a difficult position. With the advice and counsel of an experienced Rhode Island insurance attorney, you can decide if there is a valid basis to challenge the denial of your claim. The qualified insurance lawyers with Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC understand the strategies and tactics used by insurance companies to avoid paying valid claims, and we can take them to court if necessary to get you the compensation that you deserve. Contact our offices at 401-300-4055 to schedule a consultation with a dedicated Rhode Island insurance attorney today.

Prior to the filing of the recently decided case, a tragedy occurred when the two children of a Massachusetts property owner and two of their friends were celebrating a birthday at a Maine cabin that was also owned by the father. While in the cabin, the children and their friends used a gasoline-powered generator to run a small refrigerator inside the cabin. The generator was used inside the cabin and there was not adequate ventilation for the exhaust, resulting in the four individuals succumbing to carbon monoxide poisoning and dying.

The estates of the two deceased friends notified the insurance company supplying homeowners insurance to the father’s Massachusetts primary residence that they would be seeking damages under that policy for the deaths of the two friends. The insurance company then filed suit in district court seeking a judgment that the incident was not covered under the policy because of an exclusion for incidents arising out of liability from another premises, as the Maine cabin was not an insured premises under the Massachusetts homeowner’s policy.

Both the district court and later the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled against the insurance company, finding that the improper use of the generator was an act of tortuous personal conduct of the insured, and not an incident arising out of the use of the cabin per se. Although the accident occurred on the premises of the cabin, the courts found that the generator itself was not a fixture of those premises, and the four deaths were the result of the negligence of the father, and not as a result of any condition of the premises. As a result of these rulings, the estates of the deceased children may seek damages from the insurance company for the wrongful deaths.

Are You Involved in a New England Insurance Dispute?

The recently decided case demonstrates that insurance companies will often go to great lengths to deny coverage for incidents that are legally covered under the policy they sold to an insured. Without qualified representation against an insurance company, many accident victims or others with a valid claim for compensation may give up on their claim before seeking a favorable ruling from an appellate court to get their rightful compensation. The Rhode Island insurance dispute attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC, help our clients obtain compensation from insurance companies, and will take claims to court and appeal if necessary. Don’t let the massive resources and legal teams of a big insurance company intimidate you into giving up your case or taking an insufficient settlement offer without contacting us first. Contact us to schedule an appointment with a qualified insurance attorney at Bilodeau Capalbo today by calling 401-300-4055.

Rhode Island dog bites cause serious injuries each year, and they often result in the hospitalization of the bite victim. Dog owners can be held accountable in a civil claim for the damages that result from their dog’s actions. Attacks that occur at the dog owner’s home, or possibly elsewhere, may be covered by a Rhode Island homeowner’s insurance policy, even in situations in which the bite victim is the owner of the home. Some insurance policies contain exclusions for dog or animal attacks, and homeowners should be sure to have the correct policy in effect and notify their insurance company if they intend to purchase a pet.

Homeowner’s insurance policy exclusions are not always black-and-white, and insurance companies have been known to deny coverage for an incident or injury based on a supposed exclusion in the policy, which may not be applicable or enforceable under state law. Insurance policies are sometimes written to benefit the insurance company and encourage denials of claims that are actually covered under the policy if someone takes a closer look. Dog bites aren’t the only type of injury that may be covered under a homeowner’s policy, and injuries that occur far from the property may also be covered. Any injuries that occur as a result of negligence by a homeowner or their dependent should be evaluated by a legal expert to determine if there is a possible claim under the homeowner’s insurance policy to recover damages.

Have You Been Injured by Someone’s Negligence?

If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of a dog bite or another negligent act, you may be able to recover compensation for your injuries through a Rhode Island insurance claim. The skilled Rhode Island insurance attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC can help you determine if you have a meritorious claim, and we can represent you against the insurance company to fight for the settlement or jury award that you deserve. Our experienced Rhode Island attorneys have the knowledge, dedication, and skill necessary to succeed in claims against large insurance companies. To learn more about how our team of experienced attorneys can help you with your claim, and to talk to an experienced insurance attorney today, call 401-300-4055 to schedule a free consultation.

While a Rhode Island personal injury lawsuit is technically filed against the at-fault driver, the claim will most likely be defended by that driver’s insurance company. In Rhode Island, all drivers and owners must be financially responsible, meaning they must obtain a certain amount of car insurance to cover the costs of a potential accident. Rhode Island uses a fault-based system, under which drivers will obtain insurance coverage to pay for the damages that they cause. This is referred to as liability coverage.

Most Rhode Island car insurance policies contain three parts: liability for bodily injury, liability for property damage, and un/underinsured motorist protection (UIM). As mentioned above, bodily injury liability coverage protects the insured against damages to other people they cause. Similarly, property damage liability coverage pays for damage to property caused by the insured. Notably, both bodily injury and property damage liability will cover damages caused by the insured, up to the policy limit. However, neither covers injuries suffered by the insured.

Traditionally, in a fault-based system, the at-fault driver’s insurance company would cover the costs caused by the policy-holder. However, if an at-fault driver has insufficient insurance coverage, an accident victim may not be able to obtain sufficient compensation to make them whole. This is where UIM coverage kicks in. Underinsured motorist protection covers costs incurred by the policyholder in the event another driver has insufficient insurance coverage, or has no insurance at all.

Generally, Rhode Island law requires motorists to obtain all three types of insurance. The limits are as follows:

• Bodily injury liability: $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident
• Property damage liability: $25,000 per accident
• Underinsured/Uninsured Motorist Protection: $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident

However, Rhode Island allows motorists who obtain the bare minimum amount of liability coverage to forego UIM coverage. While this may reduce the policy holder’s monthly insurance premium, it also leaves them completely exposed in the event of a Rhode Island car accident.

Also important to note is that when traveling outside Rhode Island, drivers may find themselves in one of the several “no-fault,” states, including Delaware, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. In these states, motorists will deal with their own insurance company rather than that of the at-fault driver. Rhode Island insurance policies will automatically switch over to a “no-fault” policy if an insured is in an out-of-state accident in a state with a “no-fault” system.

Have You Been Injured in a Rhode Island Car Accident?

If you or a loved one has recently been injured in a Rhode Island car accident, you may be entitled to monetary compensation. At the Rhode Island law offices of Bilodeau Capalbo, we represent injury victims in Rhode Island personal injury cases. We have extensive experience handling all types of cases, and know how to effectively handle all types of Rhode Island insurance disputes. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation, call 401-300-4055 today.

Despite the requirement that all drivers maintain insurance on their vehicles, the reality is that in many Rhode Island car accidents, the victim’s injuries far exceed the policy maximum of the at-fault driver’s insurance policy. In these situations, an accident victim can obtain underinsured/uninsured motorist (UIM) benefits under their own policy.

Under Rhode Island law, all insurance companies must offer UIM insurance when they write a policy. Additionally, all motorists must obtain a certain level of UIM insurance. Only in situations where a motorist obtains the minimum amount of liability insurance can they entirely waive UIM coverage.

One concept that frequently comes up when discussing Rhode Island UIM coverage is that of insurance stacking. Insurance stacking can refer to several different ways in which an accident victim can “stack,” or aggregate, the maximum recovery amount from several different UIM policies. Under Rhode Island General Laws § 27-7-2.1, an injury victim can “collect up to the aggregate amount of coverage for all of the vehicles insured” if:

• the insured has paid two or more separate premiums for UIM coverage in a single insurance policy; or
• the insured has several different policies with the same insurance company.

Importantly, this applies even if the language in the insurance contract indicates otherwise.

Of course, complications can arise when attempting to stack UIM policies. For example, in a 2017 Rhode Island appellate decision, the court determined that an accident victim was not able to stack two policies. In that case, both of the plaintiff’s policies were issued by the same agent, and under the “Progressive” brand. However, the policies were underwritten by separate and distinct companies, that just happened to be owned by the same parent corporation.

The plaintiff argued that his “reasonable expectation” that the two policies were issued by the same company should allow him to stack the two policies, although different companies technically underwrote the policies. However, the court rejected the plaintiff’s claim, explaining that the “plain language” of the statute required the policy be issued by the same insurance company. The fact that the policies were issued by two different insurance companies that were owned by the same parent company did not meet the statute’s definition of “same insurance company.”

Have You Been Injured in a Rhode Island Car Accident?

If you or a loved one has recently been injured in a Rhode Island car accident, you may be entitled to monetary compensation for the injuries you have sustained. Do not rely on a biased insurance company’s assessment of your claim. Instead, reach out to the dedicated Rhode Island personal injury attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo for assistance. At Bilodeau Capalbo, we have extensive experience dealing with difficult Rhode Island insurance disputes, whether it be following a car accident or homeowner’s claim. To learn more, call 401-300-4055 to schedule a free consultation today.

If someone is involved in an accident that was caused by another motorist’s negligence, the at-fault motorist will be responsible for any injuries suffered by the accident victims. However, if the at-fault motorist does not have insurance, the accident victim will only be able to pursue a claim against the driver, who may not have the assets to compensate the injury victim adequately. This is where uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) protection comes into play.

Underinsured/Uninsured Motorist Protection in Rhode Island

Under a UIM policy, a policyholder is protected from accidents caused by an at-fault motorist who either has no insurance or does not have sufficient insurance to fully compensate the policyholder for the damages caused by the accident.

In many cases, UIM insurance is mandatory for Rhode Island motorists. For example, under Rhode Island General Laws section 27-7-2.1, all insurance companies must offer UIM insurance whenever they write an auto insurance policy. The amount of UIM coverage should equal the amount of liability insurance. Motorists can opt to purchase less UIM coverage; however, only motorists who opt to purchase the bare-minimum amount of required insurance can completely opt out of UIM coverage. Thus, anyone who purchases insurance above the bare-minimum requirement can only reduce UIM coverage to $25,000 per person, $50,000 per accident unless they have collision coverage in their vehicle, in which case they can entirely opt out of UIM coverage.

Importantly, UIM coverage applies in more than just cases where the at-fault motorist is underinsured or uninsured. In fact, UIM coverage applies in Rhode Island hit-and-run accidents where the at-fault driver cannot be located.

As the discussion above illustrates, Rhode Island insurance is critical to an accident victim’s ability to recover for their injuries. At the same time, the laws governing insurance coverage are complex. Anyone who has been injured in a Rhode Island accident should consult with a dedicated Rhode Island injury attorney today.

Have You Been Injured in a Rhode Island Car Accident?

If you or a loved one has recently been injured in a Rhode Island car accident, you may be entitled to monetary compensation. At the Rhode Island personal injury law firm of Bilodeau Capalbo, we represent injury victims across Rhode Island in all types of personal injury claims, including those arising out of serious Rhode Island auto accidents. We are also well-versed in all aspects of Rhode Island insurance law, and provide clients with in-depth advice on a variety of other insurance-related matters. To learn more, call 401-300-4055 to schedule a free consultation today.

See Related Posts: Common Law Marriage in Rhode Island, Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Blog, December 12, 2018.

Rhode Island Intestate Laws and the Importance of Drafting a Will, Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Blog, December 28, 2018.

Jurisdiction

In order for a court to hear a case, they must have jurisdiction over the matter and the parties. Typically, claims related to insurance or personal injury are heard in state court. However, the case may be removed to federal court if certain conditions are met. One of the ways that a case may be eligible to be heard in federal court is through diversity jurisdiction.

Diversity jurisdiction is where, as here, the parties are from different states. If an individual is suing an insurance company, the individual will of course be considered a resident of the state that they live in. For an insurance company it can be more complicated, but the court will usually look to where the company is headquartered and the state that they are incorporated in. Once the parties are determined to be truly diverse, then the other requirement to get into federal court is the amount in controversy question.

This case primarily revolved around the amount in controversy requirement and how it is determined. Along with diversity, for federal court to have jurisdiction the amount in controversy must be at least $75,000. The court will look at the relief requested in the complaint to determine the amount in controversy initially. If one party is trying to prevent removal or is trying to remove the case to federal court, they can show that the amount in controversy is less or more (depending on their position) than the amount plead in the complaint.

Keep in mind that this will not determine the ultimate damage award, though strategically a plaintiff may want to be careful about what damages they plead. Though in terms of federal court, the standard of proof is that the amount must be proven to a legal certainty. For example, if someone was in a very minor car accident where there were no injuries and they only suffered $10,000 in property damages, a party opposing removal can show proof of the actual damages. The court requires these pleadings to be in good faith.

However, if a plaintiff wants to keep the case in state court they can ask for less than $75,000, even if they can prove damages above that amount. It is a plaintiff’s right to ask for less than their actual damages so the case cannot be removed even if the defense can prove greater damages (they would not want to do this anyway as it would likely hurt their case).

Contact an Experienced Rhode Island Insurance Attorney Today!

As you can see, there are so many moving parts and strategic decisions that need to be made in every case. That’s why it’s so important that you work with a skilled Rhode Island insurance attorney if you are having trouble getting the benefits you are owed. The knowledgeable insurance attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC, can help hold the insurance company accountable. Call (401) 300-4055 or use the form on this web site to contact us today for a free consultation!

See Related Posts: Rhode Island Supreme Court Allows Insurance Arbitration Decision to Stand Rhode Island Supreme Court Holds that Good Samaritan Covered Under Uninsured Motorist Statute

Facts of the Case

An employee of the Providence Water Supply Board (PWSB) was driving her employer’s vehicle when she got into an accident. The other driver was determined to be at fault. Since Rhode Island is a fault state, the driver who is responsible for the accident is required to pay damages to the other driver.

The PWSB had underinsured motorist insurance through Argonaut Insurance Company. Underinsured motorist coverage is insurance that drivers (or in this case the PWSB, the owner of the vehicle) purchase to make up for shortfalls between the other insurance policies and the actual amount of damages. Since the parties could not come to an agreement about how much Argonaut should pay the driver, the issue was brought to arbitration. Arbitration was required under the policy that PWSB had with Argonaut.

Outcome of Arbitration

At the time of arbitration, the plaintiff had already received some benefits from other insurance policies. Specifically, the at fault driver’s policy had paid her the $25,000 policy limit, her personal insurer paid her $25,000, and PSWB’s workers’ compensation paid her $258,303. Thus, at arbitration two of the three arbitrators determined that Argonaut was able to offset any damages by $308,303, the money she had already been paid.

Further, the majority of arbitrators found that the plaintiff had pre-existing conditions that affected her lower back. They found that the accident did exacerbate these conditions, but that the hip replacement she had was not due to the accident, but as a result of her pre-existing conditions. Thus, the insurers should not be responsible for costs related to the hip replacement. Therefore, the majority of arbitrators determined that she was not entitled to any money from Argonaut as she had already received more than she was entitled to by the other insurers.

Review of Arbitration Awards

As she was not happy with the arbitration award, the injured driver appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. She was asking to depose the dissenting arbitrator, and to vacate the arbitration award. She argued that it was an error of law for the arbitrators to include the workers’ compensation amount in the total offset amount.

Here, the Supreme Court held that there was no basis for deposing the dissenting arbitrator. The court also held that the arbitration award will stand, as it did not meet any of the very narrow criteria that is required to overturn an arbitration award. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s determination and held that even if it was a mistake of law to include the workers’ compensation in the offset amount, a mistake of law is not enough to overturn an arbitration award.

Contact an Experienced Rhode Island Insurance Attorney Today!

Insurance policies are intended to compensate policy holders for the losses that they have suffered. However, sometimes insurance companies do not want to pay what accident victims are entitled to. The knowledgeable Rhode Island insurance attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC, can help you to get the insurance money that you are entitled to. Call (401) 300-4055 or use the form on this web site to contact us today for a free consultation!

See Related Posts: Rhode Island Supreme Court Holds Good Samaritan Covered Under Uninsured Motorist Statute Rhode Island Supreme Court Holds That Defendant is Entitled to an Annuity Policy Rhode Island Appellate Court Reverses Summary Judgment for Insurer in Dispute Regarding Uninsured Motorist Policy

Before trial, the parties both filed for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the only issue was whether the plaintiff was “occupying” her car at the time of the injury and that there were no genuine issues of material fact. Defendant argued that the plaintiff could not recover based on the unequivocal language of GEICO’s policy. Plaintiff argued that she was covered due to the broad definition of “occupying” outlined by the Rhode Island Supreme Court in General Accident Insurance Co. of America v. Olivier. The trial judge analyzed “occupying” based on the four prong test in Olivier, but ultimately concluded the plaintiff didn’t prove a causal connection between her insured car and her injuries. Thus, the trial judge held that the plaintiff couldn’t recover UM benefits because the first Olivier prong wasn’t satisfied. Plaintiff appealed.

Plaintiff argued that the trial court misinterpreted the first Olivier prong. She agreed with the trial judge as to the second prong, that she was in reasonably close proximity to the car when she was injured. Plaintiff asked the court to abandon Olivier‘s third prong, which requires the person who sustained the injury to be “vehicle oriented” at the time of the injury. She argued this prong was confusing, ambiguous, and useless. Regarding the fourth Olivier prong, the plaintiff asked the court to hold that acting as a Good Samaritan amounts to an “essential transaction” for the purposes of UM coverage under Rhode Island law.

Defendant argued that the plaintiff had waived her argument base don § 11-56-1 by failing to raise it at trial. Alternatively, the defendant argued that a Good Samaritan can be “occupying” the car only if the four Olivier prongs are met and that the trial judge correctly found that they were not.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court disagreed with the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff had ultimately waived her argument, reasoning that the plaintiff had made her Good Samaritan argument before the lower court. In fact, the lower court’s decision was filled with references to the plaintiff’s Good Samaritan rescue efforts.

The court then addressed whether, in light of § 11-56-1, a Good Samaritan who was injured while providing assistance can be considered to be “occupying” the car for the purposes of UM coverage.

The first prong of Olivier requires a causal connection between the injury and the use of the insured car. The court held that the facts evidenced a connection between the car and the plaintiff’s injuries because the plaintiff was inside the car when she heard the collision and went to provide aid.

The state high court did not address the second Olivier prong because the trial judge found this element to be satisfied and neither party disputed this holding. Thus, the court moved to the third prong, requiring that the plaintiff be vehicle-oriented at the time of the injury. The court held that the plaintiff’s exit from the car was a temporary interruption in an otherwise unfinished trip and therefore this prong was satisfied.

Regarding the fourth prong, which requires the plaintiff to be engaged in a transaction necessary to car’s use at the time of the injury, the court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that a willingness to render aid at the scene of a motor vehicle collision as a Good Samaritan is inherently part of the use of a motor vehicle in Rhode Island.

In sum, pursuant to Olivier, the Rhode Island Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff was occupying her insured car for purposes of UM coverage when she was injured while providing aid as a Good Samaritan. Thus, the plaintiff could recover under the terms of the GEICO policy.

At Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC, our experienced insurance attorneys are ready to help Rhode Island residents navigate their legal issues. Call 401-300-4055 or schedule your complimentary consultation today.

More Blog Posts: Rhode Island Supreme Court Holds That Defendant is Entitled to an Annuity Policy Rhode Island Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Property Owner in Broken Staircase Injury Lawsuit Mistakes Dads Make During Divorce

Plaintiff appealed from a Superior Court judgment in favor of Defendant, the beneficiary of an Amica Insurance Company annuity policy created by the plaintiff’s great-uncle and the defendant’s brother. This Rhode Island insurance law case came before the state’s Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause as to why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, the Rhode Island Supreme Court concluded that cause had not been shown and that the case could be decided without further briefing or argument.

Among other assets accumulated during his twenty-five-year career with the Providence Police Department and subsequent twenty-five years as a security officer for Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Rhode Island, the great-uncle owned two Amica annuity policies. At the time of his death, one account was valued at approximately $360,000 and the other at $20,000; only the larger account is the subject of this appeal. The two annuities were opened approximately a decade apart and each named the great-uncle’s sister as the primary beneficiary. After the sister’s death in 2002, the great-uncle executed two change-of-beneficiary forms naming the defendant, his younger sister, as the beneficiary of both policies.

On April 29, 2013, the great-uncle died testate, leaving the defendant as the sole beneficiary of the two Amica annuity policies. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff contacted Amica to notify it of the great-uncle’s passing and was informed that he was not listed as a beneficiary of the annuities. On the day after the great-uncle’s funeral, the plaintiff confronted the defendant; and, on November 14, 2013, he filed a complaint against her alleging forgery, fraud, manipulation, false pretenses, and misrepresentation. The plaintiff also alleged a lack of intent on the part of the great-uncle.

A trial was held before a Superior Court justice sitting without a jury in January 2015. On the third day of trial, plaintiff filed, without objection by defendant, an amended complaint alleging that the beneficiary-change forms were executed by the great-uncle through mistake or inadvertence. The trial justice filed a written decision on February 2, 2015; and, on February 4, 2015, final judgment was entered in favor of defendant. Subsequently, the trial justice heard and denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, and plaintiff appealed.

Plaintiff first argued that the trial justice misconstrued his theory of the case and thereby erred by applying the wrong law to the evidence. Plaintiff contended that the trial justice erroneously focused on the issue of undue influence and failed to consider that the great-uncle made a mistake due to a lack of testamentary intent.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court was satisfied that the trial justice considered, yet rejected, the possibility that the great-uncle had changed the beneficiary of his annuities by mistake or inadvertence. The trial justice concluded that there was no evidence put forth at trial that would explain the great-uncle’s change of heart. What was clear, the court held, was that the great-uncle was very deliberate in planning his estate and in changing the beneficiary designations on the two annuity contracts at issue. The trial justice referenced the evidence that the great-uncle had sought out by himself the two individuals who would witness the change-of-beneficiary forms, that he personally spoke to Amica before executing the forms, that he did not involve defendant in his estate planning, and that he told his nephew that he had “screwed up” by giving the plaintiff too much money. The state high court saw no cause to disturb the trial justice’s finding that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that the great-uncle was an independent, hard-working, and kind-hearted man, who acted with great deliberation in planning his estate. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s claim failed from a lack of proof, rather than from the trial justice’s misapplication of the law to the evidence.

Plaintiff next argued that the trial justice erred in overlooking and misconceiving material evidence pertaining to one of the beneficiary-change forms. The plaintiff asserted that the trial justice erroneously referred, in his decision, to the beneficiary-change form as a “preprinted” annuity form on which the name of the beneficiary had been printed by Amica, when in fact the name of the intended beneficiary was blank on the forms sent by Amica.

At a hearing on the plaintiff’s motion to clarify, the trial justice conceded that he had mischaracterized the forms as preprinted but stated that it did not materially or otherwise change the court’s view of the facts. The trial justice acknowledged his mistake and emphatically declared that it did not alter his ultimate conclusion. Therefore, the state high court saw no reason to vacate the judgment.

Plaintiff next argued that the trial justice erred in failing to take judicial notice of the findings made by another Superior Court justice after a hearing on the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. The state high court held that the trial justice did not err in refusing to take judicial notice of the factual findings made by the hearing justice at the hearing on the preliminary injunction. The hearing justice did not make an express determination as to who would prevail, because that was not the issue before the court. Moreover, the trial justice made his findings after additional discovery had been conducted and a more complete record was before the court.

Additionally, the plaintiff asserted in his supplemental statement that the burden of proof should have shifted to the defendant to prove absence of mistake because the defendant and great-uncle had a confidential relationship. Although the great-uncle clearly trusted and confided in the defendant, there is no evidence that he relied on her advice in his financial affairs. Indeed, the defendant testified that the great-uncle was “very quiet about his things,” never discussed his estate planning with her, nor had he told her what accounts he had. Thus, the court found no error on the part of the Superior Court in refusing to shift the burden of proof.

Finally, the plaintiff asserted in his supplemental statement that the trial justice erred in finding that the defendant was forthright and credible. Plaintiff’s citation of a quote did not sway the court to ignore the clear credibility determination of the Superior Court. Its review of the record did not persuade it that the trial justice was clearly wrong or that he misconceived or overlooked material evidence. Accordingly, the court could not say that the trial justice erred in finding that the defendant was forthright and credible.

For these reasons, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court and remanded.

At Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC, our dedicated Rhode Island insurance attorneys are eager to help you. Call 401-300-4055 or schedule your complimentary consultation today.

More Blog Posts: Rhode Island Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Property Owner in Broken Staircase Injury Lawsuit Mistakes Dads Make During Divorce How to Prepare for High-Asset Divorce

A Rhode Island appellate court recently issued an appellate opinion in a wrongful death action in which a motorcyclist tragically lost his life. The motorcyclist was traveling on the highway when a barrel fell from a passing truck and became lodged in his front tire. The rider was thrown from the motorcycle into the oncoming traffic lane, where he was hit by another vehicle. The rider died as a result of his injuries.

The rider had an insurance policy for the motorcycle that did not provide uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. He owned a separate policy, however, that did provide UM coverage, but it contained an exclusion stating that it would not provide UM coverage for injuries sustained by the insured while occupying or when struck by another vehicle owned by the insured that is not insured under the policy. Occupying was defined in the policy to include in or getting in, on, out of, or off.

The executrix of the rider’s estate brought a declaratory judgment action, seeking an order stating that the second policy provided UM coverage for the accident. The insurer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusion applied because the defendant was occupying his owned-but-not-insured motorcycle at the time of the crash. The plaintiff opposed the motion for summary judgment on the basis that there were disputed questions of material fact regarding whether the first collision involving the barrel was the cause of the death or whether the second collision involving the impact from the passing car was the cause of the death. The lower court concluded that the defendant was occupying his motorcycle at the time of the death and granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed.

On review, the appellate court relied on legal precedent in applying a strict interpretation of the term “occupying” as used in the policy. Based on this, the appellate court framed the issue as whether the defendant was in, upon, entering, or on, out, or off the motorcycle at the time of the fatal injury. The court then discussed the many different interpretations of this term that could apply to the unique facts of the rider’s injury. In doing so, it concluded that there was a factual dispute regarding whether the defendant was “getting off” his motorcycle when the barrel lodged in his front tire, or whether the fatal injury was entirely the result of the rider being struck by the passing car. Based on this, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s entry of summary judgment in the defendant’s favor and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

At Bilodeau Capalbo, our seasoned Rhode Island personal injury lawyers have counseled numerous victims regarding their legal rights following a devastating accident. We ensure that each client receives the compassionate, attentive, and diligent representation that they deserve throughout the entire legal process. To schedule your free consultation, call us now at 401-300-4055 or contact us online.

More Blog Posts Mistakes Dads Make During Divorce How to Prepare for High-Asset Divorce How to Create a Summer Custody Schedule