*1 obviously photo- “rotten” based

graphs plain- of the tree.

tiffs own he himself had never admission during of the tree

noticed condition previous

other numerous visits to the defen- property.

dant’s His contention obvious- probative

ness lacks value. We conclude no reasonable inferred

any prior notice to the with this defendant evidence, therefore,

paucity and case Antonakos, squarely

falls as the trial

justice properly concluded. plaintiffs reasons

appeal judg- and is denied and dismissed appealed

ment from affirmed. The case are remanded GOLDBERG, JJ., LEDERBERG Linder, Stephen G. For Plaintiff. Jr., Redihan, Defendant.

Charles N. For WEISBERGER, C.J., and Before LEDERBERG, BOURCIER FLANDERS, JJ.

OPINION WEISBERGER, Justice. Chief ALTIERI Frederick appeal This comes before us on case Compa- Mutual Insurance defendant (defendant Liberty) ny LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE plaintiff, in favor COMPANY. Altieri), (plaintiff or con- Frederick Altieri 95-321-Appeal. No. uninsured- firming award of mo- granting Altieri’s motorist benefits of Rhode Island. summary judgment.1 sustain the tion appeal, reverse the defendant’s July Court, with di- remand vacate the arbitrators’ award. rections to pertinent appeal to this insofar as facts undisputed and are as follows. pas- Altieri was a September senger in a car owned operat- with a car owned when collided (Katz). in- by George Katz Altieri was ed in- Subsequently accident. jured of the Katz and surers $80,000,re- vehicles application generally pres- appropri- Such an express tion award. on Wc determina- of law for the court’s summary judgment ents of motions ateness tion. response application an arbitra- to confirm *2 1105 justice sitting a findings trial spectively, of his turb the settlement claims “ that payments the limits a it can be shown them. These exhausted without ‘unless clearly wrong the Katz insur- or that such policies. ma paid then justice trial misconceived or overlooked ” Property Altieri additional an Prudential terial evidence.’ Flynn, A.2d Casualty Insurance Co. v. Altieri claim for Thereafter submitted a Moreover, (R.I.1996). 440, judicial au under his Liber- uninsured-motorist benefits award thority to vacate re- policy. When Altieri was unable to may limited. Id. at 441. This requested Liberty, claim with solve his he award, however, it can be shown policy. of his arbitration under the terms made decision was that the arbitrators’ Following hearings, an arbitration 442; law. Id. at $135,- $221,400, comprising awarded Altieri In Corp. v. PPG Westminster Construction damages plus in interest. The 205, 210-11, A.2d Liberty take award also stated that 708, 711 paid credit for to Altieri under Liberty liability policies. that an It is well Rhode Island settled payment Altieri un- subsequently refused may prejudgment arbitration award include May of the award. der the terms On As- Paola v. Commercial Union interest. petition filed a confirm (R.I. Companies, 461 A.2d surance for award in Providence Corp., 1983); Westminster justice County. May On trial at An arbitration R.I. at 711. granted petition to Altieri’s confirm to a equivalent in nature and effect award summary judg- award and his motion for Paola, 461 law. judgment in an action at 5, 1995, Liberty ment. On June filed Moreover, prejudgment- A.2d at 937. our appeal. instant statute, § re- interest G.L.1956 appeal Liberty that the trial damages quires that be added to interest rendering declaratory justice in not a erred ren- “any civil in which a verdict is action liability on the issue of pecuniary dam- dered or a decision prejudgment Liberty argues interest. In that arbitrators ages.” Paola held that the trial should have overturned award interest unless should (1) pre- award because either arbitrators’ at 937. agree otherwise. 461 A.2d on dam- interest is recoverable prior our depart from instant case we liability already ages paid by the tort-feasors’ may interest prejudgment cases (2) policies or Altieri was not entitled awards. be added to arbitration from prejudgment interest uninsured-motor- aggregated ist since the tort-feasors’ benefits including paid by the coverages, prejudg confirming the award of erred Warwick, damages. city of exceeded Altieri’s unin ment interest to Altieri to be on the other hand that Lib benefits sured-motorist prejudgment include arbitration award erty our uninsured-motorist policy. Under and that he is entitled to uninsured interest accident, in effect at the time statute prejudgment amount of the benefits 27-7-2.KB), P.L. as amended G.L.1956 remaining has after the interest (Supp.1986), 1986 ch. the total already received is subtracted from if of the tort- the limits was uninsured $221,400 ($46,400 plus “interest coverage than the liability were less feasors’ date”). coverage. See injured limits of insured’s own Insolven Island Insurer’s Bernard v. Rhode of a trial review of the decision Our (R.I.1994).2 Fund, 1232, 1233 cy A.2d not dis- appeal we shall is deferential. On case, See P.L. limits. sor's the accident at issue At time of 27-7-2.1(B) by P.L. 27-7-2.1(B) amended eligibility In 1987 conditioned motorist to afford uninsured insured benefits on the for uninsured lim- insured when the tort-feasor’s higher coverage benefits having than the tort-fea- limits computing Prejudgment added to the method of interest not be trigger recovery unin- damages previously as to addressed deci- had sured-motorist benefits. Balian v. respect to of this court in arbitration. sion prece- In the case bar our well-established ad- plaintiffs damages In Balian Altieri, controlling. plaintiff . The dents were *3 $85,000 judged by panel to be arbitration in amount excess of full who had received an liability coverage limit and the tort-feasor’s injuries, compensation for to was entitled $100,000. was Id. at 547. In that case by way of other- no further relief interest or coverage ex- held that since the tort-feasor’s Therefore, the arbitrators deter- wise. when damages, prejudg- the plaintiffs ceeded the to mined that Altieri was entitled by could not ment interest awarded injuries, compensation that was the for his damage be “tacked on” to her recover. total amount he was entitled to purposes triggering of underinsured-motorist $175,000, the he received arbitrators Since 27-7-2.KB). Balian, recovery pursuant § not free an award 610 A.2d carrier. Their decision uninsured-motorist In the that his instant case disregard law do so was manifest $135,000, adjudged damages, exceed the did Fielder, of which Balian and violation their tort-feasors’ available under Superior require action would Court liability policies, from which received vacate the award.3 He that the appeal of reasons the tort-feasors should have been considered The of defendant is sustained. purposes recovery uninsured for of Superior reversed. Court is provisions of his uninsured-motorist-benefits Superior with be to the Court remanded Liberty policy. agree. It is We the arbitrators’ award. direction undisputed by that Altieri was addition GOLDBERG, J., paid by insurers. opinion payment are of this BOURCIER, Justice, whom with pur- part “coverage” tort-feasors’ LEDERBERG, Justice, concurring. joins damage poses of Altieri’s claims. Under opinion agreement this but do am in with of Arnica Insur- rationale Fielder v. Mutual portion therein not subscribe to that R.I. acknowledge that this court’s appears to (1977), moneys source should authority, like the appellate-review counted, or an be whether from an insurer Court’s, fac- Superior restricted to those way in no insured. Our this case decision §§ 10- 10-3-12 and tors set out Flynn. deviates from our law”4 disregard of the the issue or to a “manifest A.2d 440 that case 3-14 damages the ten. Such a construction would its are less than the limits or apply standards as those the same legally See also insured is P.L.1988, entitled receive. Superior ("limits by applied are to be damages”); which reviewing but or P.L.1987, an arbitration award. ("damages”). § 1 see opinion been de- The cases cited in this Corp. v. PPG In 4. In Westminster Construction language damages” cided under the "limits or purposes of since for the effect (1977), said, this court importance opinion this this distinction of no "Although law is not eligibili- dispositive issue is not Altieri's since the per- statutory enumeration included coverage, but whether for uninsured motorists grounds upsetting missible awards, arbitration proper. the award of crept law of it has into the nonetheless suggest concurring justices arbitration the result that G.L.1956 3.Our Swan, opinion U.S. Wilko v. decisions of Court's 10-3-19 allow review (1953).” confirming, vacating, Superior 74 S.Ct. 98 L.Ed. either Wilko, foundation modifying com- It would be noted that award without or an arbitrator's Corp., was §§ plying 10-3-12 stone for Westminster with the restraints set forth Quijas Rodriguez de v. Shear overruled 10-3-14. Flanders and I Justice Inc., Express, to- U.S. should be 10-3-19 construed son/American chapter provisions three S.Ct. 104 L.Ed.2d 526 gether with all other arbitrator, Supe- approved tor when affirmed and pertain all of which authority Court’s limited when rior Court. vacate, passing upon modify, a motion to us that I note in the record before an ai'bitration award. This correct disagreement with his clear expressed appellate-review authority is not in court’s factual determina- several manner restricted fac- He, legal not- conclusions. tions well as judicial tors that limit review of arbitration reluctantly the arbi- withstanding, affirmed proceedings. apply to and lim- Those factors only of the review because trator’s award but it of an Court’s review imposed upon the limitations proceeding pursuant chapter Consequently, by §§ and 10-3-14. Assembly, 10. The of title General its usual deferen- not accord need question,5 enacted the ai'bitration act *4 judgment in to the final tial review placed upon scope no similar restrictions specific of its and should avail itself before us appellate-review authority. of this court’s to correct authority pursuant Instead, Assembly expressly the General injustice otherwise unreviewable. provided in 10-3-19 for appellate-review authority unlimited acknowledged any never before Albeit reviewing appeals judgments from final en- al- holdings, 10-3-19 has our earlier case chapter 3 tered act, and does ways the arbitration That 10 arbitration matters. section portend any manner to limit (§ 10-3-19) specifically authorizes this court pro- appellate review to that of this court’s prem- such orders in the and “make Accord- upon scribed rights parties ises as the ends although agree completely with the ingly, I justice require.”6 today’s opinion, reached result specific grant of unfettered necessary court to for this believe that was appellate-review authority in 10-3-19 does disregard of out find “manifest reach my indulge opinion, not in order to overturn law” discerning the semantics between irration final below. award reflected awards, completely al and irrational Romano of law more than sufficient error There was v. support in the record before us contained (R.I.1983), upon or between an award premises protect our order opposed error of law as award made parties and preserve rights as upon manifest error of law noted in West § 10- satisfy pursuant to ends of Corp. PPG minster Construction Indus 3-19. tries, Inc., Assembly, when it enacted The General question, vested in this

the arbitration act the clear mandate to review judgments

final entered brought proceedings review, and, after our

pursuant to that act premises as the such orders

“make parties and the ends of

rights of the

require.” recognize that authori- We should it, course, giving, of act the arbitra-

any deference vacating confirming, modifying or an order Laws Public award, supreme may appeal court provides: 6. General Laws 1956 10-3-19 actions, provided appeals in civil Any ag- party "Appeal supreme supreme court.— orders in shall make such court ruling any grieved any or order made rights of premises proceeding obtain herein authorized require.” ends of action, civil review as entry provided in final order