Morrison Mahoney Jessica Savino, partner in the Boston office, who once again prevailed in a coverage suit, this time in the First Circuit!
Plaintiff was employed by the State of Rhode Island and was acting in the scope of her employment when she was seriously injured in an accident with an underinsured driver. Finding the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage of her own policy to be insufficient, she sought additional coverage under the policy issued to the State. However, while the plaintiff would have been “an insured” for purposes of liability coverage under the State’s policy, the UIM part of the policy limited coverage to those who were occupying “owned autos” at the time of the accident – i.e., vehicles owned by the State of Rhode Island. As the plaintiff was operating her own vehicle, she did not qualify as an insured for UIM coverage and her claim was denied. Plaintiff filed suit, seeking a declaration that she was entitled to UIM coverage in an amount equal to the liability coverage and also seeking damages for breach of contract and bad faith.
After Jessica obtained summary judgment for the insurer based on the plain language of the policy, the plaintiff appealed, raising a half-dozen arguments based on public policy, case law, and the UIM statute. After oral argument, the First Circuit certified two questions to the Rhode Island Supreme Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff should be “considered” the named insured for injuries that occurred in the scope of her employment under Rhode Island law, and 2. Whether it was a violation of the UIM statute for the policy to not provide UIM coverage to one who was an insured under the liability part of the policy.
After also hearing oral arguments, the Rhode Island Supreme Court answered both questions in the negative. The First Circuit then ordered further briefing to apply the Court’s decision to the remaining issues on appeal but, in the words of their eventual decision, “spoiler alert: none of [plaintiff’s] arguments [we]re persuasive.” As such, the First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the carrier, again reinforcing that a policy’s unambiguous language and the expectations of the contracting parties controls.
