New London County Mutual Insurance v. Fontaine
2012 R.I. LEXIS 87
| R.I. | 2012Background
- Leo Fontaine and his wife were injured when an uninsured vehicle collided with their Harley, leading to Fontaine's death.
- Fontaine owned the motorcycle; Foremost insured it under its own policy, with Per‑person UM limit $100,000 on that policy.
- The Rhode Island couple held an NLC auto policy for two other vehicles (Dodge Magnum and Ford F-250) providing liability and UM coverage, effective Aug 4, 2008–Aug 4, 2009.
- NLC discovered the Harley was not listed as a vehicle covered under the NLC policy, triggering an exclusion in the NLC UM coverage for injuries while occupying or struck by a vehicle owned by the insured but not insured for UM under that policy.
- NLC sought declaratory relief; defendants sought to oppose, arguing the exclusion was ambiguous and entitled to coverage interpretation in their favor.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for NLC; on appeal the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding the exclusion unambiguous and applicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the owned but not insured exclusion is ambiguous | Fontaine argues exclusion is unambiguous, excluding UM for injuries from uninsured owned vehicle. | Fontaine contends the phrase this coverage is ambiguous without under this policy. | Exclusion unambiguous; affirmed. |
| Scope of 'this coverage' in the exclusion | This coverage refers to UM coverage under the NLC policy. | This coverage could be read to cover UM generally, potentially including Foremost motorcycle coverage. | Reading as UM under the NLC policy; not ambiguous. |
| Policy interpretation and public policy | Literal reading consistent with four-corners and prior cases upholding owned but not insured exclusions. | Exclusion should be construed to maximize coverage as public policy favors insureds. | Policy language upheld; no departure on public policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Employers’ Fire Insurance Co. v. Baker, 119 R.I. 734 (1978) (upheld owned but not insured exclusion under RI UM statute)
- Dellagrotta v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 639 A.2d 980 (R.I. 1994) (affirmed owned but not insured exclusion as unambiguous)
- Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Viti, 850 A.2d 104 (R.I. 2004) (exclusion clear and unambiguous; follows Baker/Dellagrotta)
- Gregelevich v. Progressive Northwestern Insurance Co., 882 A.2d 594 (R.I. 2005) (exclusion deemed unambiguous despite complex policy)
- Bartlett v. Arnica Mutual Insurance Co., 593 A.2d 45 (R.I. 1991) (exclusion purpose to limit multiple vehicle coverage)
- Mallane v. Holyoke Mutual Insurance Co. in Salem, 658 A.2d 18 (R.I. 1995) (declarations page importance in defining coverage)