Amberleigh HUDSON v. GEICO INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., D/B/A GEICO General Insurance Company
2017 R.I. LEXIS 86
| R.I. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Amberleigh Hudson sought underinsured motorist (UM) benefits under Hurst's GEICO policy (Saab) after a February 11, 2012 collision near Amazing Super Store.
- Hudson was a passenger in the insured Saab; an intervening collision occurred while they were approaching the scene; she sustained injuries.
- She settled with the other liable driver but claimed GEICO UM coverage due to being “occupying” the insured vehicle at the time of injury.
- GEICO denied coverage based on policy language defining “occupying” as in, entering into, or alighting from the vehicle.
- Parties submitted agreed facts and cross-motions for judgment as a matter of law; trial judge applied Olivier four-prong test and held Hudson was not occupying; Superior Court entered judgment for GEICO.
- Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated and remanded to determine whether the Good Samaritan statute § 11-56-1 can render a Good Samaritan occupant coverage under UM and whether the policy should be read broadly to include Hudson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hudson was occupying the insured vehicle under the GEICO UM policy. | Hudson remained within the vehicle and exited to aid others; broad Olivier interpretation should include her. | Policy language is clear; Hudson was not occupying at the time of injury. | Yes; the Court held Hudson was occupying under a broad Olivier construction. |
| Whether the Olivier four-prong test should be applied broadly to include Good Samaritans. | The fourprongs should be interpreted flexibly; meets first prong and remains vehicle-oriented. | Olivier prongs must be satisfied in full or nearly; defendant prevailed below. | OlIivier factors may be satisfied flexibly; plaintiff can be “occupying” even if not all prongs are met. |
| Whether § 11-56-1 (Good Samaritan statute) supports treating Hudson as a Good Samaritan occupant for UM coverage. | Public policy of rescuing others justifies coverage; Good Samaritan acts are within use of vehicle. | Raising § 11-56-1 at trial was not preserved; statute does not automatically create UM coverage. | Court addressed the issue and concluded the Good Samaritan framework supports coverage under the facts. |
| Whether the case is moot or raised under waiver rules. | Not moot; parties retain a stake in UM coverage. | Raised later; potential waiver but not moot. | The case was not moot and the issue was properly before the Court. |
Key Cases Cited
- General Accident Insurance Co. of America v. Olivier, 574 A.2d 1240 (R.I. 1990) (established four-prong Olivier occupancy test)
- General Accident Insurance Co. of America v. D'Alessandro, 671 A.2d 1233 (R.I. 1996) (broad interpretation governing UM coverage context)
- Jackson v. Quincy Mutual Insurance Co., 159 A.3d 610 (R.I. 2017) (limits broad interpretation vs. strict construction when excluding insureds)
- Ouellette v. Carde, 612 A.2d 687 (R.I. 1992) (rescue doctrine and public policy supporting recovery; §11-56-1 context)