263 A.3d 1247
R.I.2021Background
- In October 2016 Shell Ferris was injured in a motorcycle accident; he held a policy issued by Progressive Northern and later alleged uninsured-motorist/bad-faith claims.
- Ferris amended his Superior Court complaint to name Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (PCIC) and Progressive Northern; a constable served PCIC at its Warwick office on Oct. 17, 2018 by leaving papers with employee Tiffany Welch.
- PCIC did not timely answer; plaintiff obtained entries of default as to both PCIC and Progressive Northern on Nov. 8, 2018.
- PCIC moved to vacate the default, arguing it had no connection to the policy (Progressive Northern did) and therefore should not be liable; the hearing justice denied the motion for failure to show circumstances excusing the failure to plead or defend.
- PCIC renewed its motion months later without submitting new affidavits; the hearing justice again denied relief and PCIC petitioned this Court for certiorari.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding PCIC failed to present competent evidence excusing its default (counsel’s speculation was not evidence), and did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Ferris' Argument | PCIC's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCIC showed good cause under Rule 55(c) to set aside entry of default | PCIC failed to show any circumstances excusing its failure to plead or defend; service was proper and default stands | PCIC argued it had good cause because it had no connection to the insured policy, and any failure to answer was an administrative error | Court held PCIC did not show circumstances excusing the default; denial affirmed (no abuse of discretion) |
| Whether lack of connection to the underlying policy alone excuses default | Service on PCIC was proper and plaintiff would be prejudiced by reopening without proof excusing delay | PCIC contended its lack of connection is a meritorious defense that supports vacatur | Court held lack-of-connection argument does not substitute for evidence explaining the failure to plead; meritorious defense alone insufficient to meet Rule 55(c) threshold |
| Whether statements of counsel suffice as evidence of excusing circumstances | Only competent evidence (affidavits) could justify vacatur; counsel argument is not evidence | PCIC relied on counsel’s assertion of an administrative routing error to explain the default | Court held counsel statements are not evidence and rejected them as a basis for vacatur |
| Whether service on PCIC was improper under Rule 4(e)(3) | Plaintiff maintained service on Welch at PCIC office was proper | PCIC argued service was defective | Hearing justice found service proper; PCIC did not seek review of that finding and Supreme Court declined to revisit it |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Dubuc, 486 A.2d 603 (R.I. 1985) (motion to vacate default reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Prudential Investment Corp. v. Porcaro, 341 A.2d 720 (R.I. 1975) (standard for trial-court discretion over defaults)
- Reyes v. Providence Place Group, L.L.C., 853 A.2d 1242 (R.I. 2004) (Rule 55(c) good-cause standard and three-prong test discussed)
- Security Pacific Credit (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. Lau King Jan, 517 A.2d 1035 (R.I. 1986) (default-vacatur factors: gross neglect, prejudice, meritorious defense)
- Wood v. Ford, 525 A.2d 901 (R.I. 1987) (statements of counsel are not evidence)
- R.C. Associates v. Centex Gen. Contractors, Inc., 810 A.2d 242 (R.I. 2002) (vague or misleading affidavits insufficient to explain delay)
- Retirement Bd. of Employees’ Ret. Sys. v. Randall, 249 A.3d 629 (R.I. 2021) (declining to review factual determinations not properly appealed)