Lead Opinion
OPINION
The City of Pawtucket, its school department^ and its school committee (collectively, defendants)
I
Facts and Travel
Each of the sixteen plaintiffs in this case was a member of Rhode Island Council 94, A.F.S.C.M.E., AFL-CIO, Local 1352 (union), and retired between 1999 and 2007 after having rendered at least fifteen years of service to the school department. At the time of each plaintiffs retirement, a CBA was in place between the union and the school committee. Because the sixteen plaintiffs retired over a period of eight years, they retired while four different CBAs were in effect.
“Upon retirement, an employee who has reached the age of fifty-eight (58) years*175 or more, and has been a member of the Pawtucket School Department staff fifteen (15) years or more shall receive Family coverage under Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Delta Dental plans. This benefit shall extend until the Retired employee is eligible for coverage under Medicare.”
Until August 2007, plaintiffs were not required to contribute any co-payments related to their health insurance benefits. Individuals who were actively employed by the school department also received fully-paid health insurance until August 2007, when an arbitrator ruled that active non-teaching employees should contribute to the cost of the health insurance policies. An arbitrator had béen brought in to resolve an impasse that had been reached during the negotiations between the union and the school department for the CBA covering the period from July 1, 2007 to June 80, 2010 (2007-2010 CBA). Article 19 of 2007-2010 CBA contained a new provision; pursuant to Article 19.10, “bargaining unit employees” were required to contribute co-payments toward their health and dental insurance. Article 19.5 remained the same in the 2007-2010 CBA, but the school department began billing plaintiffs for health insurance co-payments, and at least ten plaintiffs' paid the co-payments billed to them.
The plaintiffs filed a complaint in Superior Court on November 12, 2008, seeking a declaratory judgment pursuant to G.L. 1956 chapter 30 of title 9 that: (1) they were entitled to free health insurance coverage until eligible for Medicare pursuant to the CBA that was in effect at the time of each plaintiffs respective retirement, (2) defendants breached the CBAs by requiring plaintiffs to contribute to the cost of the health insurance coverage, - and (3) defendants were obligated to reimburse plaintiffs for all co-payments, paid since August 2007 (collectively, count 1). The complaint also set forth a count for breach of contract, seeking damages in the amount of the. co-payments each plaintiff had paid since August-2007 (count 2) and a count for promissory estoppel (count 3).
Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on their claims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract, and included, inter alia, a copy of each complete CBA in effect when each plaintiff retired as exhibits in support of their motion. The defendants objected to plaintiffs’ motion and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. A second hearing justice of the Superior Court rendered a decision on January 5, 2012, concluding that the CBAs unambiguously provided plaintiffs with free health and dental insurance as offered at the time of each plaintiffs respective retirement until each plaintiff reached the age of eligibility for Medicare. The hearing justice granted plaintiffs’ motion, denied defendants’
II
Standard of Review
“The grant of a motion for summary judgment is reviewed by this Court de novo, employing the same standards and rule s used by the hearing justice.” The Law Firm of Thomas A. Tarro, III v. Checrallah, 60 A.3d 598, 601 (R.1.2013) (quoting Great American E & S Insurance Co. v. End Zone Pub & Grill of Narragansett, Inc., 45 A.3d 571, 574 (R.I.2012)). “It is a fundamental principle that [sjummary judgment is a drastic remedy, and a motion for summary judgment should be dealt with cautiously.” Id. (quoting Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Arbella Protection Insurance Co., 24 A.3d 544, 553 (R.I.2011)), “We will affirm a lower court's decision only if, after reviewing the admissible evidence in the light most favorable' to the nonmoving party, we conclude that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (quoting Great American E & S Insurance Co., 45 A.3d at 574). “[T]he nonmoving party bears the burden of proving by competent evidence the existence of a disputed issue of material fact and cannot rest upon mere allegations or denials in the pleadings, mere conclusions or mere legal opinions.” Id. (quoting Great American E & S Insurance Co., 45 A.3d at 574).
Ill
Discussion
Our analysis of a CBA “is guided by long-established rules of contract interpretation.” State v. Rhode Island Employment Security Alliance, Local 401, SEIU, AFL-CIO, 840 A.2d 1093, 1096 (R.I.2003). “The determination of whether a contract’s terms are ambiguous is a question of law to be decided by the court.” JPL Livery Services, Inc. v. Rhode Island Department of Administration, 88 A.3d 1134, 1142 (R.I.2014). We review questions of law de novo. Id. A term in a contract is ambiguous when it is “reasonably and clearly susceptible to more than one rational interpretation.” Miller v. Saunders, 80 A.3d 44, 49 (R.1.2013) (quoting DiPaola v. DiPaola, 16 A.3d 571, 576 (R.I.2011)). In determining whether language in a contract is ambiguous, “we give words their plain, ordinary, and usual meaning. * * * The subjective intent of the parties may not properly be considered by the Court; rather, we consider the intent expressed by the language of the contract.” JPL Livery Services, Inc., 88 A.3d at 1142 (quoting Furtado v. Goncalves, 63 A,3d 533, 537 (R.1.2013)). “[I]n situations in which the language of a contractual agreement is plain and unambigu
In the case at bar, each CBA in effect at the time of plaintiffs’ individual retirement dates contained the identical Article 19 entitled “Medical Insurance.” The plain and unambiguous language of Article 19.5 provided that employees “shall receive [flamily coverage under Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Delta Dental plans” starting when the employee retired and continuing until the retired employee was eligible for Medicare, as long as the employee was at least fifty-eight years old at the time of retirement and had been “a member of the Pawtucket School Department staff’ for at least fifteen years. That plaintiffs received this benefit at no cost to them until August 2007 is an undisputed fact. Article 19.5, however, does not contain any language to indicate whether this was a benefit to which retirees were expected to contribute a co-payment if requested, or whether the benefit was intended to provide retirees with free health insurance until they became eligible for Medicare.
In plaintiffs’ memorandum of law in support of their motion for summary, judgment, they argued that the absence of language in Article 19 indicating that the terms of retiree benefits could change to match a negotiated or arbitrated change to the terms of the active employees’ benefits unambiguously meant that plaintiffs were entitled to free health insurance upon meeting the conditions in Article 19.5. In support of their argument, plaintiffs provided eleven affidavits attesting to the understanding by ten plaintiffs- and the union’s business agent that the benefits were intended to be provided to retirees at no cost, and had been provided at no cost until August 2007. In defendants’ memorandum of law in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, they argued that the CBAs had not promised plaintiffs free health insurance upon retirement and that past practice demonstrated that retirees were simply entitled to receive benefits according to the same terms as the benefits for- active employees. In support of their argument, defendants- provided two affidavits from Thomas Conlon, the longtime business administrator for the Paw-tucket School Department. Mr. Conlon averred that, from 1996 to 2007, retirees had been permitted to participate in the same health insurance plans offered to the active employees, including plans from companies other than Blue Cross/Blue Shield (e.g., United Health). Mr. Conlon also averred that neither the union nor the school department ever expressed an intent to provide retirees with free medical benefits, but also that, to the best of his recollection, the issue of co-payment had not arisen during negotiations. Since the language of Article 19.5 is silent with respect to whether retirees were to be provided with free health insurance benefits or were expected to pay a- co-payment for the benefit, coupled with evidence that the benefits actually provided to plaintiffs did not follow Article 19.5 to the letter, we conclude that Article 19 is “reasonably and clearly susceptible to more than one rational interpretation,” and is, therefore, ambiguous. Miller, 80 A.3d at 49 (quoting DiPaola, 16 A.3d at 576).
“[Although contract interpretation is a question of law, when the con
After considering the. affidavits that both parties submitted with their memo-randa in support of their respective positions on the cross-motions for summary judgment, it is apparent that the union and the school committee, as the parties to the CBAs, had conflicting intents with respect to the level of payment expected from retirees for the health insurance, benefits. It is our opinion, therefore, that an issue of material fact exists regarding whether the defendants breached the CBAs when they billed the plaintiffs in 2007 for the health insurance co-payments. See Inland American Retail Management LLC, 68 A.3d at 465 (“summary judgment is inappropriate where references to extrinsic evidence and the surrounding circumstances must be relied on to discern the intent of the contracting parties”). Since “[t]he purpose of the summary-judgment - procedure is to identify disputed issues of fact necessitating trial, [and] not to resolve such issues,” the issue of material fact in this case should, have precluded the grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. See Plainfield Pike Gas & Convenience, LLC, 994 A.2d at 58 (quoting Rotelli, 686 A.2d at 93).
IV
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, we vacate the judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs and remand this case to the Superior Court to conduct further proceedings consistent herewith.
. The City of Pawtucket School Department was named a defendant by and through its superintendent, Patricia DiCenso; the Paw-tucket School Committee was named a defendant by and through its members Michael Araujo, Gerard Charbonneau, Katherine McQuade, Kimberly Grant, Joseph, Knight, and Erin Dube; and the City of Pawtucket was named a defendant by arid through its finance director, Ronald F. Wunschel.
. The sixteen plaintiffs were; Patricia Botel-ho, Walter Byrnes, Joan Calabro, Karen Carrell, Matilda Correia, Mary Jane Dion, Diane Drywa, Dolores Flanagan, Margaret Gararit, Estelle Petit, Linda Ruddy, Louise Shea, Margaret Silva, Beverly Walsh, Glerin Watson, and Mary Ellen Zuba.
.The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in effect when the first plaintiff retired covered July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2002. The next CBA was in effect from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2004, the next CBA from July 1, 2004 to December 31, 2005, arid the final CBA was in effect from January 1, 2006 to Juné 30, 2007.
. The complaint named only the City of Paw-tucket School Department (by and through its superintendent) and the school committee (by and through its members) as defendants, but was later amended to include defendant City of Pawtucket (by and through its finance director). The allegations and claims in the amended complaint remained the same as in the original complaint. •
. The final judgment also stated that plaintiffs had dismissed their claim for promissory es-toppel.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting,
I dissent; I do so respectfully, but nonetheless most vigorously. I am entirely unable to reconcile the holding of the majority with fundamental principles of the Anglo-American law of contracts. The agreement before us is, in my judgment, completely clear and totally unambiguous. As such, I read it as imposing absolutely no co-payment requirement on the retirees who are the plaintiffs in this lawsuit.
Upon perusing the majority’s opinion,' it quickly became clear to me that the underlying premise of the majority’s reasoning is that silence connotes ambiguity. However, there is no warrant in our law for saying that silence somehow creates ambiguity in a case such as the one presently before us. I am not aware of any opinion from this Court that stands for such a proposition, but I am aware that there is explicit language in cases from other jurisdictions that rejects that notion. See, e.g., Consolidated Bearings Co. v. Ehret-Krohn Corp., 913 F.2d 1224, 1233 (7th Cir.1990) (“Silence creates ambiguity * * * only when the silence involves a matter naturally within the scope of the contract as writ
Since I consider the agreement at issue to be unambiguous, I next turn to one of the most basic principles of contract law which has been summarized as follows: “Under established contract law principles, when there is an unambiguous contract and no proof of duress or the like, the terms of the contract are to be applied as umitten.” Gorman v. Gorman, 883 A.2d 732, 739 n. 11 (R.I.2005) (emphasis added); see also Rivera v. Gagnon, 847 A.2d 280, 284 (R.I.2004). When the terms of the contract at issue are applied as written, it is immediately clear that there is no requirement that plaintiffs pay a co-payment for their medical care.
The City of Pawtucket may have belatedly come to believe that its agreement with the retirees was overly generous. But the demotic saying that “a deal is a deal” is plainly applicable- in such a situation. As this Court has declared: “It is a basic tenet of contract law that the contracting parties can make as ‘good a deal or as bad a deal’ as they see fit * * *." Rodrigues v. DePasquale Building and Realty Co., 926 A.2d 616, 624 (R.I.2007) (quoting Durfee v. Ocean State Steel, Inc., 636 A.2d 698, 703 (R.I.1994)); see Grady v. Grady, 504 A.2d 444, 447 (R.I.1986) (“That a contract’s performance becomes more difficult or expensive than originally anticipated does not justify setting it aside.”); see also Mansolillo v. Employee Retirement Board of Providence, 668 A.2d 313, 317 (R.I.1995).
For the reasons stated herein, I would affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. Accordingly, Í must record my respectful but forceful dissent with respect to the majority’s opinion in this case.
. It should be borne in mind that we are not confronted with something entirely extraneous to what was agreed to (e.g., whether payment-should be made in cash or by check). •Rather the co-payment provision materially adds to the financial burden on the retirees; the change from no co-payment to the requirement that they make a co-payment constitutes a new contractual term that was never the subject of bargaining.