Henderson v. Nationwide Insurance Co.
2012 R.I. LEXIS 5
| R.I. | 2012Background
- Henderson, a professional limousine driver, was injured unloading luggage at Logan Airport while working for All Occasion Transportation.
- He had settled with the tortfeasor and with All Occasion's insurer but claimed additional underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage.
- Nationwide denied the UIM claim based on two exclusions: “for a fee” and “regular use.”
- The Superior Court found the exclusions void as against public policy and blocked summary judgment.
- Nationwide moved for renewal; court again found the exclusions overbroad and contrary to public policy; a judgment for Henderson was entered.
- On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for entry of judgment in Nationwide’s favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the 'for a fee' exclusion under §27-7-2.1 | Henderson: exclusion defeats statutory purposes | Nationwide: exclusion is valid and consistent with the statute | Exclusion valid and not contrary to public policy |
| Scope of public-policy limits on UIM exclusions | Henderson: public policy requires broader coverage | Nationwide: reasonable limits are allowed | Public policy permits reasonable exclusions that protect insurers |
| Ambiguity of policy language | Henderson: terms are ambiguous and should be construed | Nationwide: language is clear and unambiguous | Policy language deemed clear and unambiguous |
| Impact of exclusion on insured using vehicle for employment | Henderson: excludes coverage for work-related use | Nationwide: excludes work-related, fee-based use | Exclusion applied to facts; consistent with intent of statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Employers' Fire Insurance Co., 119 R.I. 734 (1978) (owned-but-uninsured exclusion upheld; UM coverage not absolute)
- Malo v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 459 A.2d 954 (R.I. 1983) (contractual interpretation of insurance should follow plain meaning)
- DiTata v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 542 A.2d 245 (R.I. 1988) (uninsured-motorist statutes construed with public policy focus)
- Viti v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 850 A.2d 104 (R.I. 2004) (UM coverage construed with statutory public policy)
- Ladouceur v. Hanover Insurance Co., 682 A.2d 467 (R.I. 1996) (reasonable limitations on UM coverage allowed)
- Aldcroft v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York, 106 R.I. 311 (1969) (invalidity of certain deductions from UM benefits)
- Sentry Insurance Co. v. Castillo, 574 A.2d 138 (R.I. 1990) (snowmobile exclusion invalid where within motor-vehicle scope)
- Casco Indemnity Co. v. Gonsalves, 839 A.2d 546 (R.I. 2004) (ambiguity/interpretation guidance in UM context)