Allstate Insurance Company v. Jessica Ahlquist
2013 R.I. LEXIS 21
| R.I. | 2013Background
- Jared Crook, son of Cheryl Crook, drove a Cadillac that Calvin Crook leased for him and was insured by Allstate under Calvin's policy.
- Ahlquist was injured when Jared, driving the Cadillac, collided with her vehicle in Providence, Rhode Island.
- After paying policy limits on Calvin's Allstate policy, Ahlquist sought additional recovery under Cheryl's Allstate policy.
- Cheryl's policy included a non-owned auto coverage with an exclusion requiring that a vehicle be unavailable or not furnished for the regular use of an insured person.
- Jared resided with Cheryl, used the Cadillac regularly, and the Cadillac was not owned by Jared.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment in Allstate’s favor, holding the non-owned auto exclusion applicable and unambiguous; the Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Cheryl's non-owned auto exclusion apply to Jared's regular use of the Cadillac? | Ahlquist argues the exclusion does not apply due to Jared's status as a resident relative and policy declarations showing no excluded drivers. | Ahlquist argues ambiguity arises because Jared was not listed as an excluded driver and he used the Cadillac regularly. | Exclusion applies; no ambiguity |
| Is there ambiguity between the policy's non-owned auto exclusion and the declarations page listing no excluded drivers? | None stated beyond interpreting the policy as unambiguous in favor of coverage. | Declarations page creates ambiguity by implying no drivers are excluded while the vehicle exclusion remains. | Policy language is unambiguous; exclusion controls |
| Does the fact that Calvin was a named driver and the vehicle was furnished for Jared's regular use affect coverage under Cheryl's policy? | Coverage would extend via permissive use if not for the exclusion; the exclusion negates coverage. | Calvin being a named driver and vehicle furnished to Jared should create coverage or at least ambiguity favoring Cheryl. | Vehicle exclusion governs; no coverage under Cheryl's policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Beacon Mutual Insurance Co. v. Spino Brothers, Inc., 11 A.3d 645 (R.I. 2011) (refrains from reading ambiguity where none exists; plain language governs)
- Lynch v. Spirit Rent-A-Car, Inc., 965 A.2d 417 (R.I. 2009) (read policy language in ordinary, not tortured, sense)
- Casco Indemnity Co. v. Gonsalves, 839 A.2d 546 (R.I. 2004) (interpret policy terms in light of whole contract)
- Textron, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 638 A.2d 537 (R.I. 1994) (insurance contract interpretation rules apply to policy language)
- New London County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Fontaine, 45 A.3d 551 (R.I. 2012) (apply contract construction rules to insurance policies)