272 A.3d 120
R.I.2022Background
- On April 3, 2014, Steven Dulong was injured in a collision with Chelsea Galli, who was driving a vehicle registered to her mother, Perrin Galli; Dulong suffered severe injuries including amputation.
- Travelers (the Gallis’ primary auto insurer) tendered policy limits, which Dulong claimed were inadequate; he sought excess coverage under an Andover personal umbrella endorsement on Joseph Galli’s homeowners policy (in effect Nov 2013–Nov 2014).
- Andover had drafted a Restricted Insured Endorsement (RIE) dated October 22, 2012, which limited who qualified as an “insured” for vehicle use to Joseph, Perrin, and Lindsay Galli and expressly excluded entrustment to household members not listed (thereby excluding Chelsea).
- Dispute centered on whether the RIE was effective for the 2013 policy: Andover relied on declarations pages that referenced the RIE by form number and listed the named drivers; Dulong argued the RIE was invalid because it was not attached to the 2013 policy and was signed only by Joseph.
- Dulong sought declaratory relief in Superior Court; the hearing justice granted Andover’s summary judgment and denied Dulong’s declaratory judgment; Dulong appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an endorsement must be physically attached to the policy to be effective | Dulong: Attachment is required; disputed attachment raises a material fact precluding summary judgment | Andover: The 2013 declarations expressly reference the RIE by form number and text; incorporation by reference suffices | Court: When a policy clearly references an endorsement, incorporation by reference makes attachment immaterial; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether the RIE had to be signed by all insureds to be binding | Dulong: Contract principles require signatures of all intended parties (insureds) | Andover: No statute or agreement required multiple signatures; intent shown by incorporation by reference | Court: No legal requirement that all insureds sign incorporated endorsements; Joseph's signature not required |
| Whether the RIE is ambiguous (signature line or scope) | Dulong: "Insured's Signature(s)" and RIE text create ambiguity about who must sign and whether Chelsea/Perrin were excluded for entrustment | Andover: Language is plain: only listed individuals are insured for vehicle use; entrustment exclusion is explicit | Court: RIE unambiguous in meaning and scope; signature-line ambiguity does not render endorsement invalid |
| Whether the 2013 policy was a new policy (so RIE would not apply) or a renewal | Dulong: If 2013 was a new policy, the 2012 RIE would not bind the 2013 policy | Andover: Declarations incorporated the RIE into the 2013 policy regardless of renewal status | Court: Whether the policy was a renewal or new is irrelevant because the RIE was incorporated by reference into the 2013 policy |
| Whether the RIE applies to renewal policies beyond the one it was executed for | Dulong: RIE did not facially state it would carry forward to later policies | Andover: No requirement that endorsement expressly state carryover; incorporation by reference controls | Court: RIE applied to the 2013 policy when incorporated by reference; no facial carryover text required |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of America, N.A. v. Fay, 242 A.3d 38 (R.I. 2020) (standard of appellate de novo review for summary judgment)
- Nelson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 228 A.3d 983 (R.I. 2020) (insurance policies are contracts; interpret under contract rules)
- Children’s Friend & Service v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 893 A.2d 222 (R.I. 2006) (attachment required where policy made no reference to endorsement)
- Management Capital, L.L.C. v. F.A.F., Inc., 209 A.3d 1162 (R.I. 2019) (documents referred to in a written contract may be incorporated by reference if intent is shown)
- Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Dias, 151 A.3d 308 (R.I. 2017) (policy language interpreted from standpoint of ordinary reader)
- Charlesgate Nursing Ctr. v. Med. Malpractice Joint Underwriting Ass’n, 115 A.3d 998 (R.I. 2015) (ambiguities in insurance contracts construed against insurer)