Bliss Mine Road Condominium Ass'n v. Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance
11 A.3d 1078
| R.I. | 2010Background
- Rhode Island condominium association insured by Nationwide under a windstorm policy for damage to Bliss Mine Road property.
- December 9, 2005 storm caused interior water damage while roof work remained unfinished due to asbestos discovery.
- Nationwide initially estimated loss with a $2,000 deductible (one per storm: October and December) and later appraisal valued loss at $26,977.77.
- Policy contains a windstorm deductible of 1% of the building’s limit, exceeding the loss amount, making payment contingent on windstorm applicability.
- Trial court granted JMOL in plaintiff’s favor under Rule 50 after verdict; Nationwide timely appealed.
- Court of appeals affirmed, holding windstorm is ambiguous and, as applied to this storm, did not trigger the windstorm deductible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is 'windstorm' ambiguous in the policy? | Bliss contends windstorm is ambiguous and should be construed in insured’s favor. | Nationwide contends windstorm is unambiguous and covers storms with high winds regardless of precipitation. | Ambiguous; construed in insured’s favor. |
| Did the December 9, 2005 storm qualify as a windstorm under the policy? | Bliss argues the storm caused loss via wind; windstorm deductible should apply. | Nationwide argues storm fit windstorm definition as high wind event. | Storm included significant precipitation; not a windstorm under the policy. |
| Was the Rule 50 JMOL properly affirmed, rendering other issues unnecessary to consider? | N/A | N/A | Affirmed under Rule 50; other issues not reconsidered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Black v. Vaiciulis, 934 A.2d 216 (R.I.2007) (standard for review on Rule 50 motion; evidence viewed in light favorable to nonmovant)
- Mills v. State Sales, Inc., 824 A.2d 461 (R.I.2003) (similar standard for JMOL review)
- Tedesco v. Connors, 871 A.2d 920 (R.I.2005) (ambiguity and contract interpretation standards in Rhode Island insurance cases)
- Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Streicker, 583 A.2d 550 (R.I.1990) (use of ordinary meaning in contract interpretation)
- Bartlett v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 593 A.2d 45 (R.I.1991) (ambiguity doctrine favoring insured)