Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The dispute at the center of this case arose from a business relationship that "rapidly turned sour." Plaintiffs Charles and Marguerite Takian and Defendants Ralph and Lucia Rafaelian together purchased property in South Kingstown that included a motel, restaurant and trailer park. The couples formed a business to manage the property and Plaintiffs agreed to run the businesses. In 2002, the relationship between the parties deteriorated when Defendants alleged Plaintiffs were mismanaging the businesses. Defendants decided to sell their interest to Plaintiffs' son Randolph. As part of the sale, Defendants signed a release absolving Plaintiffs from "any and all claims arising out of the ownership of the property and operation of the business." After the sale, Defendants continued to feel "unsettled" about how the business had been operated. They investigated further and alleged to have discovered facts that suggested far more serious misdeeds in management. Plaintiffs filed an action for declaratory relief, in which they sought a ruling that the release that had been executed by Defendants contemporaneous with the sale barred any further claims. Defendants counterclaimed, both on behalf of themselves and derivatively on behalf of the corporation, alleging embezzlement, misrepresentation, misappropriation, and loss of corporate opportunity. A justice of the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, after he found that the release was both valid and effective against both defendants and the corporation. Defendants appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part. The Court found triable issues of fact that were inappropriate for resolution by summary judgment. The case was remanded for further proceedings with respect to those remaining issues.

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned the applicability of an assault and/or battery exclusion in a commercial general liability insurance policy. Great American E&S Insurance Company filed a declaratory-judgment action against its insured, End Zone Pub & Grill of Narragansett, Inc. and Defendant Michael Gondusky. Gondusky previously had filed a civil suit against End Zone alleging that he had been seriously injured by two doormen who were employed by End Zone. The Superior Court entered both an order granting Great American's motion for summary judgment and a declaratory judgment decreeing that Great American "owe[d] no duty to defend or obligation to indemnify relative to the underlying action brought by Michael Gondusky against End Zone * * *." Gondusky appealed the Superior Court’s judgment. This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not summarily be decided. After considering the parties' written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, the Court concluded that cause had not been shown and that this case could be decided without further briefing or argument. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

The issue before the Supreme Court concerned the extent of uninsured motorist coverage provided under an automobile insurance policy issued to a husband and wife who were both injured by an uninsured motorist while riding their motorcycle. The husband, Leo Fontaine, died as a result of his injuries. The motorcycle in question was not expressly identified in the policy at issue. Plaintiff-Insurer New London County Mutual Insurance Company (NLC) filed suit for declaratory relief seeking clarification of the rights and obligations of the parties pursuant to their policy issued to the couple. Arguing that the policy language unambiguously excluded the defendants' claim for uninsured motorist benefits, NLC filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the Superior Court. Defendants Karolyn Fontaine, individually and on behalf of the estate of her husband, Leo appealed the grant of summary judgment and contended that the pertinent policy provision was ambiguous and should have been construed in favor of coverage. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the policy language explicitly excluded Defendants' claims from coverage. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the superior court's judgment.

Plaintiff Cheryl Sola appealed from a superior court decision dismissing her defamation claim as time-barred and granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, the City of Newport and Detective Michael Caruolo, individually and in his capacity as a member of the Newport Police Department (collectively, Defendants). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even though Plaintiff included John Doe defendants, the provisions of R.I. Gen. Laws 9-5-20, which tolls the statute of limitations to provide a plaintiff with an opportunity to discover an unknown defendant, were unavailable to Plaintiff; (2) Plaintiff's claim accrued on the date when the statements at issue were published, not on the date on which Plaintiff was fired as a result of Caruolo's allegedly defamatory statements; and (3) Plaintiff's argument that the statute of limitations should have been tolled because Caruolo fraudulently concealed Plaintiff's cause of action was without merit.

Plaintiff Nicola Tarzia was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine. After Tarzia successfully completed a diversion program, the State dismissed the charge. Tarzia later filed a motion to expunge the charge, which the district court granted. Later, however, Tarzia's past criminal activity was subsequently published. Tarzia filed a fifteen-count civil action against several State and City actors, alleging, inter alia, unlawful dissemination of expunged records, negligence, and failure to seal Plaintiff's records. The circuit court dismissed two counts for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and after a jury trial, granted judgment as a matter of law to the State and City. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the remedy of civil liability did not apply to Tarzia's case; (2) there was no reason for the Court to recognize other causes of action based in common law for alleged violations of the sealing statute; (3) the information allegedly provided to a newspaper reporter did not amount to a violation of the state's right-to-privacy statute; and (4) Tarzia waived his right to challenge on appeal the district court's finding that all of the named defendants were sued in their official capacity.

Plaintiff, Defendant's employee, was traveling as a passenger in a pickup truck owned and operated by Defendant when the truck collided with another vehicle, resulting in injuries to Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued Defendant and Defendant's Insurer, alleging negligence. The trial justice granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, reasoning that because Plaintiff had collected workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained while traveling with Defendant on work-related business, the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act precluded double recovery. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff relinquished his right to sue Defendant in tort after accepting workers' compensation benefits based on the exclusivity provision of the Act.

Dennis Gallagher was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, an occupational disease, and ultimately succumbed to the disease. A trial judge of the workers' compensation court entered decrees holding USGEN New England, Inc. (USGEN) liable to pay benefits to Dennis and to his wife, Maureen Gallagher, as Dennis's last employer under R.I. Gen. Laws 28-34-8. The appellate division of the workers' compensation court vacated those decrees and entered final decrees assessing liability against National Grid USA/Narragansett Electric (National Grid), USGEN's predecessor as owner of the plant where Dennis had worked and been exposed to asbestos. Maureen and National Grid each petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review the appellate division's final decrees. The Supreme Court issued both writs and consolidated the cases. The Court then affirmed, holding that the appellate division did not err in vacating the trial judge's decrees and in entering final decrees assessing liability against National Grid instead.

This negligence and breach of contract action arose out of Plaintiff's fall in one of Defendant's stores. Plaintiff Maureen Habershaw appealed from the superior court's grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of Defendant, Michaels Stores. At issue on appeal was whether an allegation that a floor was shiny, standing alone, could withstand a challenge to a claim that a plaintiff was injured as a result of a dangerous condition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court did not err when it granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment because there was no issue of material fact about whether a dangerous condition existed at the time of Plaintiff's fall. To the contrary, the Court held, there was a complete absence of any evidence upon which Defendant's negligence could be established.

At issue in this case was whether the driver of a motor vehicle, who is an adult but underage drinker, has a duty to protect third parties from the tortious conduct of an intoxicated individual he or she has agreed to transport, who is likewise an adult but underage drinker, by preventing that individual from subsequently operating a motor vehicle. The superior court found that no such duty existed in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the factual circumstances at hand, no such duty to third parties existed on the part of the defendant driver to prevent his intoxicated passenger from later operating his own motor vehicle.

This insurance-coverage dispute arose after a driver of a leased vehicle struck and seriously injured a pedestrian. The vehicle, a BMW, was owned by BMW Financial Services. The pedestrian and her family sued the driver and BMW Financial for damages. Citizens Insurance Company provided a personal automobile policy listing the driver as an insured and BMW Financial as an additional insured lessor. A separate business auto insurance policy was issued by Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Companies to BMW Financial. The case settled, with Citizens and Empire paying their policy limits. Citizens reimbursed Empire for a portion of the costs Empire expended in legal expenses defending BMW Financial in the civil action but refused to provide Empire with any further reimbursement. Empire subsequently filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a determination that Citizens was liable for reimbursement of all attorneys' fees it incurred. The superior court granted Empire's motion for summary judgment. Citizens appealed, arguing that Empire was entitled only to a pro-rata apportionment of defense costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that it would be improper to resort to a pro-rata apportionment of liability.