Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Company as subrogee of Dean F. Pepper v. D.F. Pepper Construction, Inc.
2013 R.I. LEXIS 23
| R.I. | 2013Background
- Pepper plowed Capitol Street on a snowy February night in 2009, creating a hazardous icy surface for traffic.
- Pepper operated DFP Inc.’s dump truck and collided with his own house on Capitol Street after encountering hard-packed ice.
- Nationwide insured Pepper’s home and paid the loss under Pepper’s homeowner policy, obtaining subrogation rights against third parties.
- Nationwide sued DFP Inc., asserting vicarious liability for Pepper’s driving within the scope of employment and Pepper’s negligence.
- The Superior Court denied summary judgment, then ruled for Nationwide after bench trial, finding Pepper negligent; the antisubrogation rule not applicable; judgment for Nationwide for $283,964.27.
- DFP Inc. appealed, challenging Pepper’s negligence finding and the antisubrogation/policy defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligence of Pepper standard | Pepper breached duty by not controlling speed under icy conditions | Pepper did not drive imprudently; conditions justified his speed | Pepper negligent; court affirmed finding of breach of duty |
| Antisubrogation rule applicability | Antisubrogation not applicable because recovery is from a distinct entity (DFP) | Antisubrogation should bar recovery from Pepper’s employer | Antisubrogation rule not applicable to these facts; affirmed no bar to recovery |
| Policy terms impact on recovery | Nationwide’s policy covers subrogation; Merchants’ policy fundamentals irrelevant | Policy language would prevent subrogation against insured Pepper | Policy terms do not bar Nationwide’s subrogation against DFP Inc.; affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Habershaw v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 42 A.3d 1273 (R.I. 2012) (duty, breach, causation, and damages framework for negligence)
- Holley v. Argonaut Holdings, Inc., 968 A.2d 271 (R.I. 2009) (clarifies standard for proving negligence in motor-vehicle cases)
- Peters v. United Electric Railways Co., 53 R.I. 251, 165 A. 773 (Rhode Island 1933) (skid evidence alone not proof of negligence; requires more)