Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. James S. Dias, 151 A.3d 308

On Sept. 22, 2012, James Dias was seriously injured while riding a motorcycle insured by Progressive Northern; his household autos were insured by Progressive Casualty.
Dias recovered the tortfeasor’s liability limit and then the uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) limit from Progressive Northern, but sought additional underinsured-motorist benefits from Progressive Casualty.
Progressive Casualty denied coverage based on an owned-but-not-insured exclusion in its automobile policy (excluding vehicles owned but not listed on the policy).
Defendants argued § 27-7-2.1(i) (Rhode Island’s stacking provision for multiple policies “with the same insurance company”) preempted that exclusion because both policies bore the “Progressive” name and were subsidiaries of The Progressive Corporation.
Progressive Casualty sued for a declaratory judgment; the Superior Court granted summary judgment holding the two Progressive companies are distinct entities for § 27-7-2.1(i). The Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether two insurance policies issued by different Progressive subsidiaries qualify as policies "with the same insurance company" under § 27-7-2.1(i)	Progressive Casualty: the companies are separate corporate entities; statute’s plain meaning requires identity of insurer	Dias/Dunham: reasonable expectations from shared brand, common agent, shared materials and contact info mean insureds should be able to stack across subsidiaries	The court held the statute’s plain meaning controls: separate corporate entities are not the "same insurance company," so stacking across distinct subsidiaries is not allowed

Cardoso v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 659 A.2d 1097 (R.I. 1995) (interpreting § 27-7-2.1 and finding the statute clear)
Whittemore v. Thompson, 139 A.3d 530 (R.I. 2016) (statutory interpretation: give words their plain and ordinary meaning)
Woodruff v. Gitlow, 91 A.3d 805 (R.I. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Daniels v. Fluette, 64 A.3d 302 (R.I. 2013) (summary-judgment standard and nonmoving party burden)
Pressman v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 574 A.2d 757 (R.I. 1990) (reasonable-expectations doctrine in insurance-policy interpretation)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ahlquist, 59 A.3d 95 (R.I. 2013) (reasonable-expectations test focuses on what ordinary purchaser would understand)
Cummings v. Shorey, 761 A.2d 680 (R.I. 2000) (statutory interpretation principles)
Arnold v. Ruggles, 1 R.I. 165 (R.I. 1837) (corporation is legally distinct from shareholders)