Iozzi v. City of Cranston, 52 A.3d 585

In October 2005, record rainfall flooded the Iozzi home at 91 Amanda Street, Cranston, causing sewer backups and property damage.
Plaintiffs sued Triton Ocean State, Veolia (U.S. Filter) and Peerless Insurance in Providence County Superior Court in November 2006 for declaratory relief and damages.
Peerless moved for summary judgment (March 2008) arguing the homeowner’s policy excluded water-related losses; the court granted the motion and final judgment followed.
Triton and Veolia moved for summary judgment (June 2009) arguing no duty due to an Act of God and LSA relief; a different judge granted summary judgment in September 2009 and a judgment entered.
Plaintiffs’ appeal as to Triton/Veolia was found untimely because the December 15, 2009 judgment was not appealed within 20 days; the appeal was filed January 20, 2010.
Plaintiffs then appealed Peerless’s denial; the Court reviewed the policy language de novo and concluded the exclusion for water damage was clear and unambiguous, excluding sewage-related damage caused by sewer backups.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the Triton/Veolia appeal timely?	Appeal timely under Rule 4; timely after vacatur and new judgment.	Rule 4(a) requires filing within 20 days; untimely.	Untimely appeal; merits not reached.
Does the Peerless policy exclusion for water damage preclude coverage?	Policy exclusion ambiguous or improperly applied to sewage damage.	Exclusion is clear and unambiguous; water damage, including sewer backup, is excluded.	Policy exclusion clear; damages excluded.
Is there ambiguity in how water damage vs. perils insured against are organized in the policy?	Ambiguity due to placement of exclusion in a different section than the perils insured against.	Exclusions logically apply to the entire policy and read with the coverage provisions.	No ambiguity; terms read together are clear.
Did plaintiffs preserve the act-of-God vs. negligence issue for consideration?	Act of God/ negligence distinction remains disputed.	Issue not raised below and thus waived under raise-or-waive rule.	Waived; not addressed on the merits.

Wachovia Bank v. Hershberger, 911 A.2d 278 (R.I. 2006) (Rule 4(a) time limits are mandatory; untimely appeals are barred)
Craveiro v. Craveiro, 773 A.2d 896 (R.I. 2001) (time limits and review principles for appeals)
Teasier v. Ann & Hope Factory Outlet Inc., 113 R.I. 921, 320 A.2d 616 (R.I. 1974) (Rule 54(b) final judgments require no just reason for delay)
Arnold Road Realty Associates, LLC v. Tiogue Fire District, 873 A.2d 119 (R.I. 2005) (timeliness treatment of prematurely filed appeals)
DiLibero v. State, 996 A.2d 599 (R.I. 2010) (courts will not entertain untimely appeals)
Waterman v. Caprio, 983 A.2d 841 (R.I. 2009) (raise-or-waive rule; issues not raised below are waived)
Shelby Insurance Co. v. Northeast Structures, Inc., 767 A.2d 75 (R.I. 2001) (act-of-God vs. negligent construction context)