Roberge v. Travelers Prop. Casualty Co. of America, 112 F.4th 45

Cynthia Roberge, employed by the State of Rhode Island, was injured in a car accident while driving her own vehicle for work when all state vehicles were in use.
The State's auto insurance policy with Travelers provided UM/UIM coverage only for occupants of “covered autos,” defined as autos owned by the State.
Roberge sought UM/UIM coverage under the State’s policy; Travelers denied coverage, citing policy language excluding her as an insured since she was not in a covered auto.
Roberge sued Travelers, alleging breach of contract and violations of Rhode Island insurance law, but the district court granted summary judgment to Travelers.
On appeal, significant unresolved questions of Rhode Island law were identified, leading to certification of two questions to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must an employee using her own vehicle in scope of employment be treated as a named insured for UM/UIM under employer's policy, despite policy language?	Martinelli and its progeny suggest an exception should apply for employees injured in the course of employment, regardless of policy language.	No such Martinelli exception exists or has ever been applied by the RI Supreme Court; policy terms control and exclude coverage.	No controlling precedent; certified to RI Supreme Court for resolution.
Does denying UM/UIM to employees (insured for liability) based on the vehicle involved violate R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1/public policy?	Statute and policy require UM/UIM coverage equal to liability limits; denial violates public policy by creating disparity between liability and UM/UIM insureds.	No violation—insurers can limit who is covered for UM/UIM; statute and public policy do not mandate coverage for all classes of persons/scenarios.	No clear RI precedent; certified to RI Supreme Court for resolution.

Martinelli v. Travelers Ins. Cos., 687 A.2d 443 (R.I. 1996) (addressed definition of insured under employer policies and suggested possible exception for employees injured in scope of employment)
Koziol v. Peerless Ins. Co., 41 A.3d 647 (R.I. 2012) (interpreting policy terms using plain meaning standard)
Pin Pin H. Su v. Kemper Ins. Cos., 431 A.2d 416 (R.I. 1981) (discussed broad protective purpose of Rhode Island’s uninsured motorist statute)
Henderson v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 35 A.3d 902 (R.I. 2012) (reviewed permissible UM/UIM policy exclusions)
Malo v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 459 A.2d 954 (R.I. 1983) (upheld exclusionary provision for UM/UIM coverage under certain circumstances)
Am. States Ins. Co. v. LaFlam, 69 A.3d 831 (R.I. 2013) (surveyed public policy limitations on UM/UIM contractual provisions)