{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-24-1040-2026-09-11", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-24-1040-2026-09-11)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-06", "fingerprint": "ewai:se:cbc925", "proof": "sha256:5ac3c2e486a449a266efe5a6d190906abea22019bf929ccff09c66872c7f64a4", "jurisdiction": "se", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ca1-24-1040-2026-09-11", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "sections": [ { "title": "United States Court of Appeals", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "For the First Circuit", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "No. 24-1040", "paragraphs": [ "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8" ] }, { "title": "APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND", "paragraphs": [ "para_11" ] }, { "title": "Before", "paragraphs": [ "para_13", "para_14" ] }, { "title": "James S. D'Ambra, with whom Wayne G. Resmini and Resmini", "paragraphs": [ "para_16" ] }, { "title": "Jessica M. Savino, with whom John P. Graceffa and", "paragraphs": [ "para_18" ] }, { "title": "August 12, 2024", "paragraphs": [ "para_20" ] }, { "title": "THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Insurance law is notoriously", "paragraphs": [ "para_22", "para_23", "para_24" ] }, { "title": "Regrettably, Roberge was in a serious car accident with an", "paragraphs": [ "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29" ] }, { "title": "Policy\") issued by Travelers to the State, but Travelers ultimately", "paragraphs": [ "para_31" ] }, { "title": "Believing that Rhode Island insurance law required that she be", "paragraphs": [ "para_33", "para_34", "para_35" ] }, { "title": "Now on appeal to us, both parties read Rhode Island", "paragraphs": [ "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41" ] }, { "title": "1 For those insurance-law newbies, a motorist is", "paragraphs": [ "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48" ] }, { "title": "Court has the final word on matters of Rhode Island law, Johnson", "paragraphs": [ "para_50", "para_51" ] }, { "title": "FACTS AND TRAVEL", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In comparison to the unsettled legal landscape we", "paragraphs": [ "para_54", "para_55" ] }, { "title": "The Policy and UM/UIM Coverage", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Travelers first issued the Policy to the State in January", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "2004, with the named insured2 being the \"State of Rhode Island.\"", "paragraphs": [ "para_59", "para_60", "para_61" ] }, { "title": "Under the Policy, UM/UIM coverage is available only if", "paragraphs": [ "para_63" ] }, { "title": "Policy definition of \"[i]nsured\" for purposes of UM/UIM coverage", "paragraphs": [ "para_65", "para_66", "para_67" ] }, { "title": "2 In insurance lingo, named insureds are also \"commonly", "paragraphs": [ "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77" ] }, { "title": "As for the definition of \"covered 'auto,'\" the Policy", "paragraphs": [ "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87" ] }, { "title": "The Car Accident and Denial of Coverage", "paragraphs": [ "para_89" ] }, { "title": "Roberge was in a car accident with an underinsured motorist. At", "paragraphs": [ "para_91" ] }, { "title": "First, the use of \"you\" and \"your\" in the Policy \"refer[s] to the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Named Insured shown in the Declarations,\" which (to refresh) refers", "paragraphs": [ "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103" ] }, { "title": "According to Roberge, it was common for employees to use their own", "paragraphs": [ "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108" ] }, { "title": "After the accident, Roberge made a claim against", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Travelers for UM/UIM coverage under the Policy issued to the", "paragraphs": [ "para_111" ] }, { "title": "2019, and ultimately reaffirmed its denial on December 20, 2019", "paragraphs": [ "para_113" ] }, { "title": "Roberge was not owed UM/UIM coverage under the Policy because she", "paragraphs": [ "para_115" ] }, { "title": "4 Nowhere in its briefing before this Court or before the", "paragraphs": [ "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120" ] }, { "title": "5 In light of Roberge's concession that she used her own car", "paragraphs": [ "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126" ] }, { "title": "6 At the time of the accident, Roberge also had her own", "paragraphs": [ "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131" ] }, { "title": "The Instant Lawsuit and District Court's Decision", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "None too pleased with those denials, Roberge filed the", "paragraphs": [ "para_134" ] }, { "title": "County Superior Court. The complaint raised five counts: breach", "paragraphs": [ "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140" ] }, { "title": "IV\"); and bad faith (\"Count V\"). A month later, Travelers removed", "paragraphs": [ "para_142" ] }, { "title": "2023, Travelers filed a motion for summary judgment as to all", "paragraphs": [ "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150" ] }, { "title": "443 (R.I. 1996), or, alternatively, pursuant to the Rhode Island", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Uninsured Motorist Statute, R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1 (more on the", "paragraphs": [ "para_153", "para_154" ] }, { "title": "On December 15, 2023, the district court issued an order", "paragraphs": [ "para_156" ] }, { "title": "Roberge's cross-motion. In doing so, the district court reasoned", "paragraphs": [ "para_158", "para_159", "para_160" ] }, { "title": "Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute required that Roberge be", "paragraphs": [ "para_162" ] }, { "title": "Roberge then filed a timely appeal, asking us to step in", "paragraphs": [ "para_164", "para_165" ] }, { "title": "THE ISSUES", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Boiled down to its essence, the only issue before us is", "paragraphs": [ "para_168", "para_169", "para_170" ] }, { "title": "(and the district court, to boot) agree that, under the text of", "paragraphs": [ "para_172", "para_173", "para_174" ] }, { "title": "While agreement on that point simplifies things", "paragraphs": [ "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179" ] }, { "title": "Roberge argues on appeal (as she also did before the district", "paragraphs": [ "para_181" ] }, { "title": "Supreme Court's Martinelli decision and/or the Rhode Island", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Uninsured Motorist Statute require that she be afforded UM/UIM", "paragraphs": [ "para_184" ] }, { "title": "Martinelli issue and the Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute", "paragraphs": [ "para_186" ] }, { "title": "Rhode Island insurance law that are better left to our", "paragraphs": [ "para_188", "para_189" ] }, { "title": "Certification, however, is only appropriate under the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Rhode Island Supreme Court's Rules of Appellate Procedure where", "paragraphs": [ "para_192", "para_193", "para_194" ] }, { "title": "R.I. Sup. Ct. R., Art. I, R. 6(a). Our own law also places", "paragraphs": [ "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199" ] }, { "title": "2012) (citations omitted). And applying those principles here, it", "paragraphs": [ "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205" ] }, { "title": "Because Roberge was driving her own car at the time of the accident", "paragraphs": [ "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216" ] }, { "title": "Ctr., LLC v. Daimler Trucks N. Am., LLC, 92 F.4th 330, 348 (1st", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Cir. 2024). In the sections that follow, we explain why those", "paragraphs": [ "para_219", "para_220", "para_221" ] }, { "title": "Standard of Review", "paragraphs": [ "para_223", "para_224" ] }, { "title": "Mattos, 106 F.4th 122, 132 (1st Cir. 2024). In doing so, \"we", "paragraphs": [ "para_226", "para_227" ] }, { "title": "LLC, 92 F.4th at 346 (citation omitted). This lens and mode of", "paragraphs": [ "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234" ] }, { "title": "The Martinelli Issue", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Our de-novo lenses on and our sleeves rolled up, we get", "paragraphs": [ "para_237" ] }, { "title": "Roberge argues that the Rhode Island Supreme Court's decision in", "paragraphs": [ "para_239", "para_240", "para_241" ] }, { "title": "Ultimately, we think this kerfuffle is best left to the Rhode", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Island Supreme Court to resolve. To explain why, we'd better start", "paragraphs": [ "para_244", "para_245" ] }, { "title": "In Martinelli, David Martinelli (\"Martinelli\"), the", "paragraphs": [ "para_247" ] }, { "title": "Inc. (\"Select Auto\"), was injured in a car accident while riding", "paragraphs": [ "para_249" ] }, { "title": "Mark Tantimonaco.8 687 A.2d at 444-45. Martinelli's damages", "paragraphs": [ "para_251", "para_252" ] }, { "title": "Select Auto's insurer, for UM/UIM coverage under Select Auto's", "paragraphs": [ "para_254" ] }, { "title": "8 To be crystal clear, the Tantimonacos' car was not owned by", "paragraphs": [ "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259", "para_260" ] }, { "title": "Before getting to what the Rhode Island Supreme Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_262", "para_263", "para_264" ] }, { "title": "Select Auto and every use of the word \"you\" and \"your\" in that", "paragraphs": [ "para_266", "para_267", "para_268" ] }, { "title": "1. You", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "2. If you are an individual, any family", "paragraphs": [ "para_271" ] }, { "title": "3. Anyone else occupying a covered auto or a", "paragraphs": [ "para_273", "para_274", "para_275", "para_276" ] }, { "title": "4. Anyone for damages he or she is entitled to", "paragraphs": [ "para_278", "para_279" ] }, { "title": "Id. at 445. Like the Policy at issue in today's appeal, the", "paragraphs": [ "para_281", "para_282" ] }, { "title": "On appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, Martinelli", "paragraphs": [ "para_284" ] }, { "title": "(i.e., \"You\") was ambiguous because Select Auto (the entity defined", "paragraphs": [ "para_286", "para_287", "para_288", "para_289", "para_290", "para_291" ] }, { "title": "The Rhode Island Supreme Court flatly disagreed, finding", "paragraphs": [ "para_293", "para_294" ] }, { "title": "445-46. \"Therefore,\" according to the Rhode Island Supreme Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300", "para_301", "para_302", "para_303", "para_304", "para_305" ] }, { "title": "In reaching that conclusion, the Rhode Island Supreme", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Court \"note[d] that the majority of jurisdictions that have", "paragraphs": [ "para_308", "para_309", "para_310", "para_311", "para_312", "para_313", "para_314" ] }, { "title": "Although we hold that in the circumstances of", "paragraphs": [ "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323", "para_324", "para_325", "para_326", "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330", "para_331", "para_332", "para_333", "para_334", "para_335", "para_336" ] }, { "title": "It is this language in Martinelli that Roberge latches", "paragraphs": [ "para_338", "para_339", "para_340" ] }, { "title": "Martinelli exception), which requires that employees be considered", "paragraphs": [ "para_342", "para_343", "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347" ] }, { "title": "While the Rhode Island Supreme Court has never actually", "paragraphs": [ "para_349", "para_350", "para_351", "para_352", "para_353" ] }, { "title": "(R.I. 2002) (per curiam).9 In that case, two men, Edward Couto", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(\"Couto\") and Richard Rampino (\"Rampino\" and, collectively with", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Couto, \"decedents\"), were killed in a car accident when they were", "paragraphs": [ "para_357", "para_358", "para_359", "para_360" ] }, { "title": "Corp., d/b/a Porino's Gourmet Foods (\"Porino's\"), and Tara Food", "paragraphs": [ "para_362" ] }, { "title": "Porino's had an insurance policy issued by Travelers, and West", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Valley had an insurance policy issued by Anthem Casualty Insurance", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Group (\"Anthem\"). Id. These policies covered two specific cars", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(neither of which was the car involved in the accident) and", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "9 As the Medeiros litigation resulted in several per curiam", "paragraphs": [ "para_368", "para_369", "para_370", "para_371", "para_372", "para_373", "para_374", "para_375" ] }, { "title": "Maria Medeiros (\"Medeiros\"), executrix of Couto's", "paragraphs": [ "para_377", "para_378", "para_379", "para_380", "para_381", "para_382", "para_383", "para_384" ] }, { "title": "On appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, that Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_386", "para_387", "para_388", "para_389", "para_390", "para_391", "para_392", "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398", "para_399", "para_400", "para_401", "para_402", "para_403", "para_404" ] }, { "title": "The Medeiros I case generated further litigation that is", "paragraphs": [ "para_406", "para_407", "para_408", "para_409" ] }, { "title": "This newly discovered evidence seemed to suggest that the decedents", "paragraphs": [ "para_411", "para_412" ] }, { "title": "822 A.2d 175, 177 (R.I. 2003) (per curiam). In Medeiros II, the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Rhode Island Supreme Court decided that the newly discovered", "paragraphs": [ "para_415", "para_416", "para_417", "para_418", "para_419", "para_420", "para_421", "para_422", "para_423", "para_424", "para_425", "para_426", "para_427" ] }, { "title": "But that's still not where the story ends. The Medeiros", "paragraphs": [ "para_429" ] }, { "title": "There, Medeiros filed yet another lawsuit -- this time against", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Travelers -- and provided some evidence that the decedents went to", "paragraphs": [ "para_432", "para_433", "para_434", "para_435" ] }, { "title": "2003), then-Superior-Court-Justice Gilbert V. Indeglia10 started", "paragraphs": [ "para_437", "para_438", "para_439" ] }, { "title": "1. You", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "2. If you are an individual \"family member.\"", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "3. Anyone else \"occupying\" a covered \"auto\" or", "paragraphs": [ "para_443", "para_444" ] }, { "title": "4. Anyone for damages he or she is entitled to", "paragraphs": [ "para_446", "para_447" ] }, { "title": "Citing Martinelli and Medeiros I, Justice Indeglia explained that", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Couto could not be considered an \"[i]nsured\" because \"You\" clearly", "paragraphs": [ "para_450" ] }, { "title": "Notwithstanding this conclusion, Justice Indeglia denied", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Travelers summary judgment because Medeiros had presented", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "10 It's worth highlighting here that Justice Indeglia would", "paragraphs": [ "para_454", "para_455", "para_456", "para_457", "para_458", "para_459", "para_460", "para_461" ] }, { "title": "Indeglia explained:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "However, the Martinelli Court, left open the", "paragraphs": [ "para_464", "para_465", "para_466", "para_467", "para_468", "para_469", "para_470", "para_471", "para_472", "para_473", "para_474", "para_475", "para_476", "para_477", "para_478", "para_479", "para_480", "para_481", "para_482", "para_483", "para_484", "para_485" ] }, { "title": "Medeiros I Court, agreeing that shareholders", "paragraphs": [ "para_487", "para_488", "para_489", "para_490", "para_491", "para_492", "para_493" ] }, { "title": "Medeiros I] because, absent any evidence that", "paragraphs": [ "para_495", "para_496", "para_497", "para_498", "para_499" ] }, { "title": "Id. at *4 (alterations in original) (citations omitted). In", "paragraphs": [ "para_501", "para_502", "para_503" ] }, { "title": "Subsequent to Martinelli, the Court [in Medeiros I and Medeiros", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "II] directly affirmed summary judgment because the Martinelli", "paragraphs": [ "para_506", "para_507", "para_508" ] }, { "title": "Needless to say, the parties (and the district court)", "paragraphs": [ "para_510", "para_511" ] }, { "title": "Court reaffirmed its existence in Medeiros I and Medeiros II, and", "paragraphs": [ "para_513", "para_514", "para_515" ] }, { "title": "For its part, Travelers argues that Martinelli did not create such", "paragraphs": [ "para_517", "para_518", "para_519", "para_520", "para_521", "para_522" ] }, { "title": "Island Supreme Court has never identified under which", "paragraphs": [ "para_524", "para_525", "para_526", "para_527", "para_528", "para_529", "para_530", "para_531", "para_532" ] }, { "title": "Putting all this together, it is clear to us that this", "paragraphs": [ "para_534", "para_535", "para_536" ] }, { "title": "Medeiros II -- the only Rhode Island Supreme Court decisions to", "paragraphs": [ "para_538", "para_539", "para_540", "para_541" ] }, { "title": "To be sure, these cases suggest (as Roberge points out) that, for", "paragraphs": [ "para_543", "para_544", "para_545", "para_546", "para_547" ] }, { "title": "The Rhode Island Supreme Court has never explained when", "paragraphs": [ "para_549", "para_550", "para_551", "para_552", "para_553", "para_554", "para_555", "para_556", "para_557", "para_558", "para_559" ] }, { "title": "11 For example, much of the commotion in Martinelli and", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Medeiros I regarded the definition of \"You\" -- language noticeably", "paragraphs": [ "para_562" ] }, { "title": "1080; Martinelli, 687 A.2d at 445-46. But the Rhode Island Supreme", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Court never explained whether the Martinelli exception would apply", "paragraphs": [ "para_565", "para_566", "para_567", "para_568", "para_569", "para_570", "para_571", "para_572" ] }, { "title": "Policy defines an \"[i]nsured\" as (among other things) \"[t]he Named", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Insured\" -- which is very similar to the \"You\" language discussed", "paragraphs": [ "para_575" ] }, { "title": "Martinelli requires that an employee (like Roberge, for instance)", "paragraphs": [ "para_577", "para_578", "para_579", "para_580", "para_581", "para_582" ] }, { "title": "Indeglia noted in Medeiros III that \"the Rhode Island Supreme Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_584", "para_585", "para_586", "para_587", "para_588" ] }, { "title": "Accordingly, with \"no controlling precedent\" on this", "paragraphs": [ "para_590" ] }, { "title": "R.I. Sup. Ct. R., Art. I, R. 6(a), we conclude that the more", "paragraphs": [ "para_592", "para_593", "para_594", "para_595" ] }, { "title": "687 A.2d 443 (R.I. 1996), and Rhode Island", "paragraphs": [ "para_597", "para_598", "para_599", "para_600", "para_601", "para_602" ] }, { "title": "First, federalism concerns and principles of prudence are at their", "paragraphs": [ "para_604", "para_605", "para_606", "para_607", "para_608", "para_609", "para_610", "para_611" ] }, { "title": "Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 81 F.4th 73, 76 (1st Cir. 2023) (per", "paragraphs": [ "para_613" ] }, { "title": "The Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute Issue", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "While now on the other side of the Martinelli issue, our", "paragraphs": [ "para_616", "para_617" ] }, { "title": "Motorist Statute, R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1, also requires that", "paragraphs": [ "para_619", "para_620" ] }, { "title": "The Policy does not simply provide UM/UIM coverage; it", "paragraphs": [ "para_622", "para_623", "para_624" ] }, { "title": "Business Auto Extension Endorsement, however, the definition of", "paragraphs": [ "para_626", "para_627", "para_628" ] }, { "title": "As for the definition of \"covered 'auto'\" as used here, the State", "paragraphs": [ "para_630", "para_631", "para_632", "para_633", "para_634", "para_635", "para_636" ] }, { "title": "State selected a limit of $1,000,000 per accident for liability", "paragraphs": [ "para_638" ] }, { "title": "Against that liability-coverage backdrop, we turn now to", "paragraphs": [ "para_640", "para_641" ] }, { "title": "No policy insuring against loss resulting from", "paragraphs": [ "para_643", "para_644", "para_645", "para_646", "para_647", "para_648", "para_649", "para_650", "para_651", "para_652", "para_653", "para_654", "para_655", "para_656", "para_657", "para_658", "para_659", "para_660", "para_661", "para_662", "para_663", "para_664", "para_665", "para_666", "para_667", "para_668", "para_669", "para_670", "para_671", "para_672" ] }, { "title": "R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(a) (emphases ours). The statute defines", "paragraphs": [ "para_674", "para_675", "para_676" ] }, { "title": "Additionally, the statute requires that, once the insured selects", "paragraphs": [ "para_678", "para_679", "para_680", "para_681", "para_682", "para_683", "para_684", "para_685", "para_686", "para_687", "para_688", "para_689", "para_690", "para_691", "para_692" ] }, { "title": "Motorist Statute and, therefore, that provision of the Policy must", "paragraphs": [ "para_694" ] }, { "title": "Naturally, Travelers disagrees. In its view, the public", "paragraphs": [ "para_696", "para_697", "para_698" ] }, { "title": "Travelers says -- has pointed to no Rhode Island Supreme Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_700", "para_701", "para_702" ] }, { "title": "That last part is true enough: Roberge hasn't proffered", "paragraphs": [ "para_704", "para_705", "para_706" ] }, { "title": "Court cases out there adjudicating public policy challenges to", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "UM/UIM insurance policy provisions under the Rhode Island", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Uninsured Motorist Statute. See Am. States Ins. Co. v. LaFlam, 69", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "A.3d 831, 835-37 (R.I. 2013) (surveying Rhode Island Supreme Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_711" ] }, { "title": "Uninsured Motorist Statute). And from those cases, several", "paragraphs": [ "para_713" ] }, { "title": "To begin, the Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute", "paragraphs": [ "para_715" ] }, { "title": "Cos./Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 431 A.2d 416, 419 (R.I. 1981), which", "paragraphs": [ "para_717", "para_718", "para_719", "para_720" ] }, { "title": "2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). \"Contracts", "paragraphs": [ "para_722", "para_723", "para_724", "para_725", "para_726", "para_727", "para_728", "para_729", "para_730" ] }, { "title": "Island Supreme Court has] held that reasonable limitations will be", "paragraphs": [ "para_732", "para_733", "para_734", "para_735", "para_736", "para_737", "para_738" ] }, { "title": "Undergoing that case-specific inquiry, the Rhode Island", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Supreme Court has indicated that certain types of provisions do", "paragraphs": [ "para_741", "para_742" ] }, { "title": "(1) \"restrict coverage afforded by the uninsured-motorist", "paragraphs": [ "para_744", "para_745", "para_746", "para_747", "para_748", "para_749", "para_750", "para_751", "para_752", "para_753", "para_754", "para_755", "para_756" ] }, { "title": "Even with these guideposts, however, we do not feel", "paragraphs": [ "para_758" ] }, { "title": "Court's] course\" on the question of whether this particular UM/UIM", "paragraphs": [ "para_760", "para_761", "para_762", "para_763", "para_764", "para_765" ] }, { "title": "Motorist Statute's requirement that it \"provide[] [coverage] in or", "paragraphs": [ "para_767", "para_768", "para_769" ] }, { "title": "R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(a). This requirement suggests that the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Statute is concerned with ensuring that there be a certain symmetry", "paragraphs": [ "para_772", "para_773", "para_774", "para_775", "para_776", "para_777", "para_778" ] }, { "title": "Therefore, application of the contract here does not simply \"limit", "paragraphs": [ "para_780", "para_781", "para_782" ] }, { "title": "UM/UIM-coverage recovery whatsoever, despite Roberge clearly being", "paragraphs": [ "para_784", "para_785" ] }, { "title": "This -- at the very least arguably -- flies in the face of the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute's \"broad statutory", "paragraphs": [ "para_788" ] }, { "title": "On the other hand, Travelers also makes a good point", "paragraphs": [ "para_790", "para_791" ] }, { "title": "UM/UIM coverage and explained the following:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Neither the terms of the statute nor the", "paragraphs": [ "para_794", "para_795", "para_796", "para_797", "para_798", "para_799", "para_800", "para_801" ] }, { "title": "For example, in Henderson, the Court upheld an exclusionary", "paragraphs": [ "para_803", "para_804", "para_805", "para_806" ] }, { "title": "Court upheld another exclusionary provision which denied UM/UIM", "paragraphs": [ "para_808", "para_809", "para_810", "para_811", "para_812" ] }, { "title": "If the plaintiffs in fact had liability coverage, then Roberge's", "paragraphs": [ "para_814", "para_815" ] }, { "title": "UM/UIM coverage might not ultimately prove dispositive of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_817" ] }, { "title": "Rhode Island Supreme Court case \"directly on point.\" Am. States", "paragraphs": [ "para_819" ] }, { "title": "Looking to other jurisdictions also doesn't provide us", "paragraphs": [ "para_821", "para_822", "para_823", "para_824", "para_825", "para_826", "para_827", "para_828" ] }, { "title": "Nov. 16, 2015); LaRoche v. State Farm Ins. Co., No. Civ.A. CV", "paragraphs": [ "para_830" ] }, { "title": "But the Rhode Island Supreme Court has admitted before that its", "paragraphs": [ "para_832", "para_833" ] }, { "title": "850 A.2d 104, 108 (R.I. 2004).12", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "This issue, therefore, meets the requirements for", "paragraphs": [ "para_836" ] }, { "title": "Rule of Appellate Procedure satisfied (to recap, an answer on this", "paragraphs": [ "para_838" ] }, { "title": "Rhode Island precedent), R.I. Sup. Ct. R., Art. I, R. 6(a), but", "paragraphs": [ "para_840", "para_841", "para_842" ] }, { "title": "Furthermore, the same federalism and prudence concerns", "paragraphs": [ "para_844", "para_845", "para_846" ] }, { "title": "12 To add to the complexity, Roberge also raises a litany of", "paragraphs": [ "para_848" ] }, { "title": "Uninsured Motorist Statute. For example, Roberge argues that", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Travelers did not comply with its statutory requirement \"to notify", "paragraphs": [ "para_851", "para_852", "para_853" ] }, { "title": "Laws § 27-7-2.1(d). These primarily factual disputes need not be", "paragraphs": [ "para_855", "para_856" ] }, { "title": "(citation omitted). And allowing state courts to answer unresolved", "paragraphs": [ "para_858", "para_859", "para_860", "para_861", "para_862" ] }, { "title": "Supreme Court:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Does it violate the Rhode Island Uninsured", "paragraphs": [ "para_865", "para_866", "para_867", "para_868", "para_869" ] }, { "title": "UM/UIM coverage to employees in the scope of", "paragraphs": [ "para_871" ] }, { "title": "CERTIFICATION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "To summarize, in light of the foregoing, we certify the", "paragraphs": [ "para_874", "para_875" ] }, { "title": "Cos., 687 A.2d 443 (R.I. 1996), and Rhode", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Island law, must an employee, who is operating", "paragraphs": [ "para_878", "para_879", "para_880", "para_881" ] }, { "title": "(2) Does it violate the Rhode Island Uninsured", "paragraphs": [ "para_883", "para_884", "para_885", "para_886", "para_887" ] }, { "title": "13 We are grateful to the parties for their briefing and input", "paragraphs": [ "para_889", "para_890", "para_891" ] }, { "title": "UM/UIM coverage to employees in the scope of", "paragraphs": [ "para_893" ] }, { "title": "We would welcome any further guidance from the Rhode Island Supreme", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Court on any other relevant aspect of Rhode Island law that it", "paragraphs": [ "para_896", "para_897" ] }, { "title": "The clerk of this Court is directed to forward to the", "paragraphs": [ "para_899", "para_900", "para_901", "para_902", "para_903", "para_904" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "United States Court of Appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "For the First Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "No. 24-1040", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "CYNTHIA A. ROBERGE,", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "Plaintiff, Appellant,", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA,", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "Defendant, Appellee.", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "[Hon. John J. McConnell, Jr., U.S. District Judge]", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "Before", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Barron, Chief Judge,", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "Thompson and Gelpí, Circuit Judges.", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "James S. D'Ambra, with whom Wayne G. Resmini and Resmini", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "Law LLC were on brief, for appellant.", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "Jessica M. Savino, with whom John P. Graceffa and", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "Morrison Mahoney LLP were on brief, for appellee.", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "August 12, 2024", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "- 2 -", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Insurance law is notoriously", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "complex and today's appeal proves that point. To explain, before", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "us we have Appellant Cynthia Roberge (\"Roberge\") and Appellee", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (\"Travelers\").", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "Regrettably, Roberge was in a serious car accident with an", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "underinsured motorist1 during the course of her then-employment", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "for the State of Rhode Island (\"the State\"). Following the", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "accident, Roberge made a demand for uninsured/underinsured", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "motorist (\"UM/UIM\") coverage under an insurance policy (\"the", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "Policy\") issued by Travelers to the State, but Travelers ultimately", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "concluded she was not entitled to UM/UIM coverage under the Policy.", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "Believing that Rhode Island insurance law required that she be", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "afforded UM/UIM coverage under the Policy, Roberge sued. The", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "district court, however, disagreed and granted Travelers summary", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "Now on appeal to us, both parties read Rhode Island", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "insurance law very differently and argue it undeniably requires", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "their preferred outcome. For our part, we don't view the issues", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "or the law nearly as cut-and-dry as the parties do. In fact, as", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "we see it, today's appeal would require us to answer complex", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "questions of Rhode Island insurance law regarding UM/UIM coverage", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "1 For those insurance-law newbies, a motorist is", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "\"underinsured\" when the limits of their liability coverage are", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "insufficient to cover the victim's injuries. See Ladouceur v.", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "Hanover Ins. Co., 682 A.2d 467, 468 n.3 (R.I. 1996).", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "- 3 -", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "-- questions upon which the Rhode Island Supreme Court has not had", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "a chance to opine. Accordingly, because the Rhode Island Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "Court has the final word on matters of Rhode Island law, Johnson", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "v. Johnson, 952 F.3d 376, 377 (1st Cir. 2020), we certify the two", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "unresolved questions identified below to that Court for insight.", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "FACTS AND TRAVEL", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "In comparison to the unsettled legal landscape we", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "referenced above and will describe in depth below, the material", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "facts are straightforward and not in dispute.", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "The Policy and UM/UIM Coverage", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "Travelers first issued the Policy to the State in January", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "2004, with the named insured2 being the \"State of Rhode Island.\"", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "The Policy was continuously renewed over the years, including,", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "most pertinently to our purposes, for the period of February 1,", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "2018 to February 1, 2019.", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "Under the Policy, UM/UIM coverage is available only if", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "the claimant is considered an \"[i]nsured.\" The only relevant", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "Policy definition of \"[i]nsured\" for purposes of UM/UIM coverage", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "is \"[a]nyone 'occupying' a covered 'auto' or a temporary substitute", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "for a covered 'auto'. Any 'auto' that is owned by the [State] is", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "not a temporary substitute for a covered 'auto'. The covered", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "2 In insurance lingo, named insureds are also \"commonly", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "referred to as class-I insureds, and occupants of an insured", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "vehicle[ are] commonly referred to as class-II insureds.\" Finch", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "v. Centennial Ins. Co., 650 A.2d 495, 497 (R.I. 1994).", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "- 4 -", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "'auto' must be out of service because of its breakdown, repair,", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "servicing, 'loss' or destruction.\" Accordingly, being considered", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "an \"[i]nsured\" (and thus having access to UM/UIM coverage under", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "the Policy) turns on whether the car at issue is a \"covered 'auto'", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "or a temporary substitute for a covered 'auto.'\"", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "As for the definition of \"covered 'auto,'\" the Policy", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "provides a list of ten symbols from which the State could have", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "selected what constitutes a \"covered 'auto.'\" Here, the State", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "selected symbol \"2\" for UM/UIM coverage. Symbol \"2\" means \"[o]wned", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "'[a]utos' [o]nly\" -- defined in the Policy as \"[o]nly those 'autos'", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "you own.\"3 What all this insurance mumbo-jumbo means here is that,", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "under the Policy, there was UM/UIM coverage for accidents involving", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "only cars owned by the State or temporary substitutes for cars", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "owned by the State. And, notably, the State specifically selected", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "a $50,000 limit per accident for UM/UIM coverage claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "The Car Accident and Denial of Coverage", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "On October 18, 2018 (and while the Policy was in effect),", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "Roberge was in a car accident with an underinsured motorist. At", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "3 A brief aside for some other helpful contractual context.", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "First, the use of \"you\" and \"your\" in the Policy \"refer[s] to the", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "Named Insured shown in the Declarations,\" which (to refresh) refers", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "to the \"State of Rhode Island.\" Second, to illustrate some of the", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "other options available to the State on that ten-symbol list,", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "symbol \"1\" would have afforded UM/UIM coverage to \"[a]ny '[a]uto,'\"", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "and symbol \"9\" would have afforded such coverage to \"[n]on-owned", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "'[a]utos' [o]nly,\" which \"includes 'autos' owned by your", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "'employees' . . . while used in your business.\" The State did not", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "select either symbol for UM/UIM coverage.", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "- 5 -", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "the time of the accident, she was acting within the course of her", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "employment for the State4 and she was driving her own personal car.", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "According to Roberge, it was common for employees to use their own", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "personal cars if all of the State's cars were in use by other", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "employees and, therefore, no State car was available -- as was the", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "case on the date of the accident.5 As a result of the accident,", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "Roberge sustained injuries and has been unable to return to work.", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "After the accident, Roberge made a claim against", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "Travelers for UM/UIM coverage under the Policy issued to the", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "State.6 Travelers denied Roberge UM/UIM coverage on September 19,", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "2019, and ultimately reaffirmed its denial on December 20, 2019", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "and October 2, 2020. In its denials, Travelers explained that", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "Roberge was not owed UM/UIM coverage under the Policy because she", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "was driving her own car at the time of the accident and, therefore,", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "4 Nowhere in its briefing before this Court or before the", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "district court did Travelers attempt to refute that, at the time", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "of the accident, Roberge was acting within the scope of her", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "employment. Indeed, all the evidence in the record supports that", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "conclusion.", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "5 In light of Roberge's concession that she used her own car", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "on the day of the accident because \"all of [the State's] vehicles", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "were already in use by other [State employees],\" her own car cannot", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "be considered a \"temporary substitute for a covered 'auto'\" as the", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "State's cars were not \"out of service because of [their] breakdown,", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "repair, servicing, 'loss' or destruction.\"", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "6 At the time of the accident, Roberge also had her own", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "personal insurance policy with USAA.", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "- 6 -", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "was not driving a \"covered 'auto'\" and was not considered an", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "\"[i]nsured.\"", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "The Instant Lawsuit and District Court's Decision", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "None too pleased with those denials, Roberge filed the", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "instant complaint against Travelers on April 4, 2021 in Providence", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "County Superior Court. The complaint raised five counts: breach", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "of contract (\"Count I\"); declaratory judgment that she was a named", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "insured under the Policy (\"Count II\"); declaratory judgment that", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "the Policy offered her coverage up to $1,000,000 (\"Count III\");", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "declaratory judgment that Travelers' acts were malicious in its", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "denial of coverage and entitled her to punitive damages (\"Count", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "IV\"); and bad faith (\"Count V\"). A month later, Travelers removed", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "the case to federal court premised on diversity. Eventually in", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "2023, Travelers filed a motion for summary judgment as to all", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "counts, arguing that Roberge was not entitled to UM/UIM coverage", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "under the Policy or under Rhode Island insurance law. Not to be", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "outdone, Roberge filed a cross-motion for summary judgment as to", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "only Counts I-III. In her cross-motion, Roberge argued that (among", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "other things) she was entitled to UM/UIM coverage, notwithstanding", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "the Policy's language, pursuant to the Rhode Island Supreme Court's", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "decision in Martinelli v. Travelers Insurance Companies, 687 A.2d", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "443 (R.I. 1996), or, alternatively, pursuant to the Rhode Island", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "Uninsured Motorist Statute, R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1 (more on the", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "relevance of this case and statute later).", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "- 7 -", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "On December 15, 2023, the district court issued an order", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "granting Travelers' motion for summary judgment and denying", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "Roberge's cross-motion. In doing so, the district court reasoned", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "that, because she was driving her own car at the time of the", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "accident, she was not driving a \"covered 'auto'\" and she was not", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "an \"[i]nsured.\" It also explained that neither Martinelli nor the", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute required that Roberge be", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "given UM/UIM coverage.", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "Roberge then filed a timely appeal, asking us to step in", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "and grant her the UM/UIM coverage she believes she's due under", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "Rhode Island insurance law.", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "THE ISSUES", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "Boiled down to its essence, the only issue before us is", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "whether Roberge is entitled to UM/UIM coverage. While disagreement", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "between the parties on that issue abounds, it's helpful to start", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "at the outset with what everyone can agree upon. Here, the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "(and the district court, to boot) agree that, under the text of", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "the Policy itself, Roberge is not entitled to UM/UIM coverage", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "because she was driving her own car and, therefore, was not driving", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "a \"covered 'auto'\" and was not an \"[i]nsured.\"7", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "While agreement on that point simplifies things", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "somewhat, it doesn't resolve today's appeal. That is so because", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "7 We, too, can get behind that reading of the Policy because,", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "heeding the Rhode Island Supreme Court's instruction, insurance", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "- 8 -", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "Roberge argues on appeal (as she also did before the district", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "court) that, despite the terms of the Policy, the Rhode Island", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "Supreme Court's Martinelli decision and/or the Rhode Island", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "Uninsured Motorist Statute require that she be afforded UM/UIM", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "coverage. As we previewed up top, by our lights, both the", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "Martinelli issue and the Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "issue involve unanswered and outcome-determinative questions of", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "Rhode Island insurance law that are better left to our", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "Rhode-Island-law colleagues on the Rhode Island Supreme Court.", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "Consequently, our plan is to certify two questions to that Court.", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "Certification, however, is only appropriate under the", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "Rhode Island Supreme Court's Rules of Appellate Procedure where", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "the certified question \"may be determinative of the cause then", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "pending in the certifying court\" and \"there is no controlling", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "precedent in the decisions of the [Rhode Island] Supreme Court.\"", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "R.I. Sup. Ct. R., Art. I, R. 6(a). Our own law also places", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "policies must be read in accordance with \"the rules established", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "for the construction of contracts generally\" and \"[t]he terms of", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "the policy shall be given their plain, ordinary, and usual", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "meanings.\" Koziol v. Peerless Ins. Co., 41 A.3d 647, 650 (R.I.", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "2012) (citations omitted). And applying those principles here, it", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "is clear as day that, per the terms of the Policy, Roberge was not", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "an \"[i]nsured\" for purposes of UM/UIM coverage. The Policy limits", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "who is considered an \"[i]nsured\" to \"[a]nyone 'occupying' a covered", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "'auto' or a temporary substitute for a covered 'auto,'\" and", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "\"covered 'auto'\" is limited to \"'[a]utos' [the State] own[s].\"", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "Because Roberge was driving her own car at the time of the accident", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "as all of the other State's cars were in use, she was not driving", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "a \"covered 'auto' or a temporary substitute for a covered 'auto'\"", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "and is, therefore, not an \"[i]nsured.\"", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "- 9 -", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "limitations on when certification of a question of state law is", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "appropriate. \"Specifically, because of our own obligations to", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "exercise the jurisdiction that we have,\" certification is not the", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "right course of action where, despite the absence of controlling", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "precedent, state law is sufficiently clear for us to predict how", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "a state's highest court would decide the question. R.I. Truck", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "Ctr., LLC v. Daimler Trucks N. Am., LLC, 92 F.4th 330, 348 (1st", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "Cir. 2024). In the sections that follow, we explain why those", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "requirements fit this case and the issues like a glove. Before", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "doing so, however, we take a beat to outline the standard of review", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "through which we analyze the issues.", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "Standard of Review", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "We review the grant of summary judgment de novo (i.e.,", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "without deference to the district court's views). MacRae v.", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "Mattos, 106 F.4th 122, 132 (1st Cir. 2024). In doing so, \"we", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "assess the facts in the light most flattering to the nonmovant and", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "draw all reasonable inferences on its behalf.\" R.I. Truck Ctr.,", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "LLC, 92 F.4th at 346 (citation omitted). This lens and mode of", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "analysis do not change where the parties file cross-motions for", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "summary judgment (as is the case here). Rather, we simply review", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "each motion \"separately, drawing facts and inferences in favor of", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "- 10 -", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "the non-moving party.\" Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. United Rentals (N.", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "Am.), Inc., 977 F.3d 69, 72 (1st Cir. 2020).", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "The Martinelli Issue", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "Our de-novo lenses on and our sleeves rolled up, we get", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "to work, starting off with the Martinelli issue. Basically,", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "Roberge argues that the Rhode Island Supreme Court's decision in", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "that case requires that she be afforded UM/UIM coverage, despite", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "the Policy's clear language excluding her from such coverage.", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "Travelers fires back that Martinelli requires no such thing.", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "Ultimately, we think this kerfuffle is best left to the Rhode", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "Island Supreme Court to resolve. To explain why, we'd better start", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "off with the Martinelli decision itself and some of the decisions", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "that followed it.", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "In Martinelli, David Martinelli (\"Martinelli\"), the", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "principal shareholder and general manager of Select Auto Sales,", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "Inc. (\"Select Auto\"), was injured in a car accident while riding", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "in a car owned by Theresa Tantimonaco and operated by her husband,", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "Mark Tantimonaco.8 687 A.2d at 444-45. Martinelli's damages", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "exceeded the liability-coverage limit of the Tantimonaco's", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "insurance policy, so Martinelli filed a claim with Travelers,", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "Select Auto's insurer, for UM/UIM coverage under Select Auto's", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "insurance policy. Id. at 444. Travelers denied the claim and,", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "8 To be crystal clear, the Tantimonacos' car was not owned by", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "Select Auto nor did it have any affiliation with Select Auto.", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "- 11 -", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "after Martinelli filed a lawsuit for declaratory judgment, the", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "trial court granted Travelers' motion for summary judgment. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "at 444-45.", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "Before getting to what the Rhode Island Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "actually decided, it's worth walking through some of the provisions", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "of Select Auto's insurance policy (and its many similarities to", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "the Policy Travelers issued to the State). The named insured was", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "Select Auto and every use of the word \"you\" and \"your\" in that", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "policy referred to Select Auto itself. For UM/UIM coverage to", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "apply under that policy, the claimant had to be considered an", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "\"[i]nsured.\" An \"[i]nsured\" was defined in the policy as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "1. You", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "2. If you are an individual, any family", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "member.", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "3. Anyone else occupying a covered auto or a", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "temporary substitute for a covered auto. The", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "covered auto must be out of service because of", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "its breakdown, repair, servicing, loss or", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "destruction.", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "4. Anyone for damages he or she is entitled to", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "recover because of bodily injury sustained by", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "another insured.", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "Id. at 445. Like the Policy at issue in today's appeal, the", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "definition of \"covered auto\" was limited to \"[o]nly those autos", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "[Select Auto] own[s].\"", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "On appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, Martinelli", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "argued that the first definition of \"[i]nsured\" under the policy", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "(i.e., \"You\") was ambiguous because Select Auto (the entity defined", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "as \"You\" in the policy) could not suffer bodily injury and", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "- 12 -", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "therefore never receive the benefits of the policy. Id. For that", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "definition to make sense, according to Martinelli at least, \"You\"", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "must have also included Martinelli himself because he was Select", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "Auto's principal shareholder and general manager. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "The Rhode Island Supreme Court flatly disagreed, finding", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "the policy's language to indicate unambiguously that \"You\"", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "referred only to the named insured (i.e., Select Auto). Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "445-46. \"Therefore,\" according to the Rhode Island Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "and \"pursuant to the plain terms of the policy, [Martinelli] was", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "not entitled to uninsured-motorist coverage for injuries sustained", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "while riding in a noninsured vehicle for personal reasons.\" Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "at 446. The Court further noted that Martinelli could not be", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "considered an \"[i]nsured\" under the anyone-occupying-a-covered-", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "auto definition of \"[i]nsured\" because \"[i]t was undisputed that", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "[Martinelli] was not occupying an insured vehicle\" (recall that", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "the policy limited \"covered 'auto[s]'\" to \"[o]nly those autos", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "[Select Auto] own[ed]\" and the Tantimonacos owned the car at", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "issue). Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "In reaching that conclusion, the Rhode Island Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "Court \"note[d] that the majority of jurisdictions that have", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "addressed this issue have concluded that a corporate shareholder", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "or an employee is not eligible for uninsured-motorist benefits", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "under a policy in which the corporation is the named insured, in", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "the event that his or her injuries were sustained outside an", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "- 13 -", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "insured vehicle.\" Id. The Rhode Island Supreme Court ended its", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "analysis with the following (and it's important so don't forget):", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "Although we hold that in the circumstances of", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "this case and pursuant to the policy in", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "question [Martinelli] did not qualify for", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "uninsured-motorist benefits, we do not", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "foreclose the possibility that in different", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "circumstances this Court could conclude that", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "an individual shareholder or employer might be", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "eligible for uninsured-motorist coverage", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "under a policy that listed the corporation as", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "the named insured. For instance, [Martinelli]", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "in the instant case was clearly acting outside", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "the scope of his employment at the time of his", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "accident. It is conceivable that a", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "shareholder or an employee who is injured", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "while acting within the scope of his or her", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "employment might be considered the named", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "insured for purposes of uninsured-motorist", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "coverage. Because [Martinelli] was clearly", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "acting outside the scope of his employment at", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "the time he was injured, we need not make such", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "a determination.", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "It is this language in Martinelli that Roberge latches", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "onto for her argument that she is entitled to UM/UIM coverage under", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "the Policy, notwithstanding the Policy's own terms. In her mind,", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "the Martinelli Court created an exception (the so-called", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "Martinelli exception), which requires that employees be considered", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "the named insured if they were acting within the scope of their", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "employment and therefore be entitled to UM/UIM coverage. Because", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "it is undisputed that she was acting within the scope of her", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "employment at the time of the accident, the argument goes,", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "Martinelli requires that she be given UM/UIM coverage.", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "- 14 -", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "While the Rhode Island Supreme Court has never actually", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "applied the so-called Martinelli exception and granted relief to", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "a party seeking application of that exception, there is some reason", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "to believe that that Court recognizes such an exception, given", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "some of its subsequent decisions. For example, consider Medeiros", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "v. Anthem Casualty Insurance Group (\"Medeiros I\"), 796 A.2d 1078", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "(R.I. 2002) (per curiam).9 In that case, two men, Edward Couto", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "(\"Couto\") and Richard Rampino (\"Rampino\" and, collectively with", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "Couto, \"decedents\"), were killed in a car accident when they were", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "struck by an uninsured drunk driver. Id. at 1079. The decedents", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "were on their way home from a Red Sox game at Fenway Park in a car", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "owned by Rampino and operated by Couto. Id. At the time of their", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "deaths, each decedent owned 25 percent of two corporations, Damien", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "Corp., d/b/a Porino's Gourmet Foods (\"Porino's\"), and Tara Food", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "Services, Inc., d/b/a West Valley Inn (\"West Valley\"). Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "Porino's had an insurance policy issued by Travelers, and West", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "Valley had an insurance policy issued by Anthem Casualty Insurance", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "Group (\"Anthem\"). Id. These policies covered two specific cars", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "(neither of which was the car involved in the accident) and", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "9 As the Medeiros litigation resulted in several per curiam", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "and non-published decisions which don't provide a full factual", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "picture of the underlying events giving rise to that litigation,", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "we have consulted portions of the Medeiros record (which the", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "parties included in the record before us) to fill in some of those", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "missing details.", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "- 15 -", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "provided UM/UIM coverage to these corporations as the named", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "insureds. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "Maria Medeiros (\"Medeiros\"), executrix of Couto's", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "estate, filed a lawsuit against Anthem, seeking UM/UIM benefits", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "under the policy it issued to West Valley. Id. She argued that", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "the language of the policy was ambiguous as to who actually was", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "the named insured and that there was a material issue of fact as", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "to whether the decedents were acting in the course of their", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "business and employment at the time of the accident. Id. The", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "trial court ultimately sided with Anthem and granted it summary", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "judgment. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "On appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, that Court", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "determined that Martinelli controlled because, just like in that", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "case, the policy's named insured was West Valley, which only meant", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "the corporation, not its shareholders. Id. at 1080. However,", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "before ending its opinion, the Rhode Island Supreme Court seemed", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "to say that the so-called Martinelli exception did, indeed, exist:", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "We agree with [Medeiros] that in Martinelli,", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "this Court suggested that shareholders and", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "employees acting within the scope of their", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "employment might be considered the named", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "insured for purposes of uninsured motorist", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "coverage. However, there is no evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "tending to show that [Couto] falls within this", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "exception. [Medeiros] presented no direct", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "evidence that the decedents were engaged in", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "any business-related activity. Therefore, the", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "grant of summary judgment was appropriate in", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "this case.", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "- 16 -", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "The Medeiros I case generated further litigation that is", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "also relevant to the existence (or non-existence) of the Martinelli", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "exception. While the Medeiros I appeal was pending, Medeiros filed", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "yet another appeal, seeking to vacate the granting of summary", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "judgment in favor of Anthem based upon newly discovered evidence.", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "This newly discovered evidence seemed to suggest that the decedents", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "were at the Red Sox game to discuss business opportunities for", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "West Valley. Medeiros v. Anthem Cas. Ins. Grp. (\"Medeiros II\"),", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "822 A.2d 175, 177 (R.I. 2003) (per curiam). In Medeiros II, the", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "Rhode Island Supreme Court decided that the newly discovered", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "evidence could not come in because Medeiros did not demonstrate", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "due diligence. Id. at 178-79. While the Medeiros II Court did", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "not discuss the details of the Martinelli exception, it stated", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "that, \"[i]n Medeiros I, we affirmed the judgment because, absent", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "any evidence that the decedents were acting in the course of their", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "employment on behalf of the corporations when the accident", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "occurred, summary judgment was proper.\" Id. at 176-77. This", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "language again suggests the existence of the Martinelli exception", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "because, if evidence existed that the decedents were acting within", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "the scope of their business and employment, summary judgment in", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "favor of Anthem would not have been proper (despite the fact that", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "Couto was in a non-covered auto at the time of the accident).", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "- 17 -", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "But that's still not where the story ends. The Medeiros", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "litigation continued on in Providence County Superior Court.", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "There, Medeiros filed yet another lawsuit -- this time against", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "Travelers -- and provided some evidence that the decedents went to", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "the Red Sox game in the course of their employment. In response,", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "Travelers filed a motion for summary judgment. In Medeiros v.", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "Aetna Casualty & Surety Company of America (\"Medeiros III\"), No.", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "C.A. 01-4842, 2003 WL 23195558, at *1 (R.I. Super. Ct. Dec. 8,", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "2003), then-Superior-Court-Justice Gilbert V. Indeglia10 started", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "off his decision by noting that, under the policy Travelers issued", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "to Porino's, the named insured was Porino's and an \"[i]nsured\" for", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "purposes of UM/UIM coverage was defined as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "1. You", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "2. If you are an individual \"family member.\"", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "3. Anyone else \"occupying\" a covered \"auto\" or", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "a temporary substitute for a covered \"auto.\"", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": ". . .", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "4. Anyone for damages he or she is entitled to", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "recover because of \"bodily injury\" sustained", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "by another insured.", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "Citing Martinelli and Medeiros I, Justice Indeglia explained that", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "Couto could not be considered an \"[i]nsured\" because \"You\" clearly", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "referred only to Porino's. Id. at *3.", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "Notwithstanding this conclusion, Justice Indeglia denied", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "Travelers summary judgment because Medeiros had presented", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "10 It's worth highlighting here that Justice Indeglia would", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "go on to serve as an Associate Justice of the Rhode Island Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "Court.", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "- 18 -", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "sufficient evidence that the decedents were acting within the scope", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "of their employment at the time of the accident and thus created", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "a genuine issue of material fact as to whether, despite the", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "policy's language, Couto could still be considered the named", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "insured. Id. at *4-5. In reaching that conclusion, Justice", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "Indeglia explained:", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "However, the Martinelli Court, left open the", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "possibility of an exception whereby a", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "shareholder may be considered the named", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "insured for UM benefits when the corporation", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "is named. The Court indicated that \"[i]t is", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "conceivable that a shareholder or an employee", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "who is injured while acting within the scope", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "of his or her employment might be considered", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "the named insured for purposes of", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "uninsured-motorist coverage.\" While the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "did not specifically outline the criteria for", "paragraph_id": "para_473" }, { "text": "such a determination, the Court indicated that", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "a legally insufficient situation would be a", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "trip for \"personal business,\" \"personal", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "reasons,\" or a \"pleasure trip, with no", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "connection to business.\" In Martinelli, a", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "determination was not necessary on whether the", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "shareholder was sufficiently engaged in", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "employment-related activities for the", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "purposes of being considered the named insured", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "because the shareholder \"was clearly acting", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "outside the scope of his employment at the", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "time he was injured . . . .\" Likewise, the", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "Medeiros I Court, agreeing that shareholders", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "acting within the scope of their employment", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "might be considered the named insured,", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "affirmed summary judgment because \"plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "presented no direct evidence that the", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "decedents were engaged in any business-related", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "activity.\" The Supreme Court specifically", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "indicated that it \"affirmed the judgment [in", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "Medeiros I] because, absent any evidence that", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "the decedents were acting in the course of", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "their employment on behalf of the corporations", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "- 19 -", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "when the accident occurred, summary judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "was proper.\"", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "Id. at *4 (alterations in original) (citations omitted). In", "paragraph_id": "para_500" }, { "text": "response to Travelers' argument that the Martinelli exception was", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "mere dicta, Justice Indeglia said, \"even if the Martinelli", "paragraph_id": "para_502" }, { "text": "exception constituted dicta, that is no longer the case.", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "Subsequent to Martinelli, the Court [in Medeiros I and Medeiros", "paragraph_id": "para_504" }, { "text": "II] directly affirmed summary judgment because the Martinelli", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "exception was not shown. Consequently, this Court finds that", "paragraph_id": "para_506" }, { "text": "[Medeiros] may rely on the [Martinelli] exception.\" Id. at *5", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "(citations omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_508" }, { "text": "Needless to say, the parties (and the district court)", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "have different takes on the just-described caselaw. Roberge argues", "paragraph_id": "para_510" }, { "text": "that the Martinelli exception exists, the Rhode Island Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "Court reaffirmed its existence in Medeiros I and Medeiros II, and", "paragraph_id": "para_512" }, { "text": "the exception clearly applies here because she was acting within", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "the scope of her employment at the time of the accident -- which", "paragraph_id": "para_514" }, { "text": "all means summary judgment should have been granted in her favor.", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "For its part, Travelers argues that Martinelli did not create such", "paragraph_id": "para_516" }, { "text": "an exception, it simply did not \"foreclose the possibility that in", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "different circumstances . . . an employee who is injured while", "paragraph_id": "para_518" }, { "text": "acting within the scope of his or her employment might be", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "considered the named insured for purposes of uninsured-motorist", "paragraph_id": "para_520" }, { "text": "coverage.\" Martinelli, 687 A.2d at 446. To Travelers, the Rhode", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "- 20 -", "paragraph_id": "para_522" }, { "text": "Island Supreme Court has never identified under which", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "\"circumstances\" an employee injured while acting with the scope of", "paragraph_id": "para_524" }, { "text": "their employment would be considered the named insured for purposes", "paragraph_id": "para_525" }, { "text": "of UM/UIM coverage. Similarly, the district court determined that", "paragraph_id": "para_526" }, { "text": "the Rhode Island Supreme Court has never identified the precise", "paragraph_id": "para_527" }, { "text": "circumstances under which the Martinelli exception would apply", "paragraph_id": "para_528" }, { "text": "and, even if that Court had, the exception would not apply because", "paragraph_id": "para_529" }, { "text": "the Martinelli Court was considering coverage for an injured party", "paragraph_id": "para_530" }, { "text": "that was a shareholder of the named insured, not a regular employee", "paragraph_id": "para_531" }, { "text": "as is the case for Roberge.", "paragraph_id": "para_532" }, { "text": "Putting all this together, it is clear to us that this", "paragraph_id": "para_533" }, { "text": "kerfuffle between the parties turns on the precise circumstances", "paragraph_id": "para_534" }, { "text": "under which the Martinelli exception applies (to the extent such", "paragraph_id": "para_535" }, { "text": "an exception even exists). While Martinelli, Medeiros I, and", "paragraph_id": "para_536" }, { "text": "Medeiros II -- the only Rhode Island Supreme Court decisions to", "paragraph_id": "para_537" }, { "text": "have discussed the Martinelli exception -- are helpful in", "paragraph_id": "para_538" }, { "text": "navigating this question, we do not think they sufficiently \"allow", "paragraph_id": "para_539" }, { "text": "us to predict [that Court's] course.\" Hosp. San Antonio, Inc. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_540" }, { "text": "Oquendo-Lorenzo, 47 F.4th 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_541" }, { "text": "To be sure, these cases suggest (as Roberge points out) that, for", "paragraph_id": "para_542" }, { "text": "purposes of UM/UIM coverage, summary judgment in favor of an", "paragraph_id": "para_543" }, { "text": "insurer may not be proper where an employee was injured in the", "paragraph_id": "para_544" }, { "text": "scope of their employment. However, that doesn't necessarily mean", "paragraph_id": "para_545" }, { "text": "summary judgment in her favor is appropriate either.", "paragraph_id": "para_546" }, { "text": "- 21 -", "paragraph_id": "para_547" }, { "text": "The Rhode Island Supreme Court has never explained when", "paragraph_id": "para_548" }, { "text": "summary judgment in favor of a named insured's employee is proper", "paragraph_id": "para_549" }, { "text": "because it was never confronted with a case -- like the one at", "paragraph_id": "para_550" }, { "text": "issue here -- where an employee was injured while in the scope of", "paragraph_id": "para_551" }, { "text": "her employment. In this way, then, it is also true (as Travelers", "paragraph_id": "para_552" }, { "text": "points out) that the Rhode Island Supreme Court has never", "paragraph_id": "para_553" }, { "text": "delineated the precise contours and circumstances of this", "paragraph_id": "para_554" }, { "text": "so-called exception.11 It merely stated that \"[i]t [was]", "paragraph_id": "para_555" }, { "text": "conceivable that a shareholder or an employee who is injured while", "paragraph_id": "para_556" }, { "text": "acting within the scope of his or her employment might be", "paragraph_id": "para_557" }, { "text": "considered the named insured for purposes of uninsured-motorist", "paragraph_id": "para_558" }, { "text": "coverage.\" Martinelli, 687 A.2d at 446. Indeed, even Justice", "paragraph_id": "para_559" }, { "text": "11 For example, much of the commotion in Martinelli and", "paragraph_id": "para_560" }, { "text": "Medeiros I regarded the definition of \"You\" -- language noticeably", "paragraph_id": "para_561" }, { "text": "absent from the Policy at issue here. Medeiros I, 796 A.2d at", "paragraph_id": "para_562" }, { "text": "1080; Martinelli, 687 A.2d at 445-46. But the Rhode Island Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_563" }, { "text": "Court never explained whether the Martinelli exception would apply", "paragraph_id": "para_564" }, { "text": "only in the context of that specific policy language. Moreover,", "paragraph_id": "para_565" }, { "text": "there's some reason to believe that the absence of this \"You\"", "paragraph_id": "para_566" }, { "text": "language might not be a difference-maker. As explained above, an", "paragraph_id": "para_567" }, { "text": "\"[i]nsured\" is defined by reference to whether the claimant was", "paragraph_id": "para_568" }, { "text": "operating a \"covered 'auto.'\" That definition only applies,", "paragraph_id": "para_569" }, { "text": "though, if the named insured is \"[a] partnership, limited liability", "paragraph_id": "para_570" }, { "text": "company, corporation or any other form of organization.\" If the", "paragraph_id": "para_571" }, { "text": "named insured, however, is instead \"[a]n individual,\" then the", "paragraph_id": "para_572" }, { "text": "Policy defines an \"[i]nsured\" as (among other things) \"[t]he Named", "paragraph_id": "para_573" }, { "text": "Insured\" -- which is very similar to the \"You\" language discussed", "paragraph_id": "para_574" }, { "text": "in Martinelli and the Medeiros line of cases. Accordingly, if", "paragraph_id": "para_575" }, { "text": "Martinelli requires that an employee (like Roberge, for instance)", "paragraph_id": "para_576" }, { "text": "injured in the scope of her employment be considered the named", "paragraph_id": "para_577" }, { "text": "insured of a given policy, Martinelli, 687 A.2d at 446, there's an", "paragraph_id": "para_578" }, { "text": "argument to be made that, as an individual, she would be considered", "paragraph_id": "para_579" }, { "text": "an \"[i]nsured\" for UM/UIM-coverage purposes regardless of the car", "paragraph_id": "para_580" }, { "text": "she was operating at the time of the accident.", "paragraph_id": "para_581" }, { "text": "- 22 -", "paragraph_id": "para_582" }, { "text": "Indeglia noted in Medeiros III that \"the Rhode Island Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_583" }, { "text": "ha[d] not fully resolved the [Martinelli] issue\" because there", "paragraph_id": "para_584" }, { "text": "could be circumstances under which an employee acting within the", "paragraph_id": "para_585" }, { "text": "scope of their employment would, nevertheless, still not be", "paragraph_id": "para_586" }, { "text": "considered the named insured. Medeiros III, 2003 WL 23195558, at", "paragraph_id": "para_587" }, { "text": "*5 n.7.", "paragraph_id": "para_588" }, { "text": "Accordingly, with \"no controlling precedent\" on this", "paragraph_id": "para_589" }, { "text": "issue, which is \"determinative of the [pending] cause [of action],\"", "paragraph_id": "para_590" }, { "text": "R.I. Sup. Ct. R., Art. I, R. 6(a), we conclude that the more", "paragraph_id": "para_591" }, { "text": "prudent approach is to give the Rhode Island Supreme Court the", "paragraph_id": "para_592" }, { "text": "first opportunity to answer the following question of Rhode Island", "paragraph_id": "para_593" }, { "text": "state law:", "paragraph_id": "para_594" }, { "text": "In light of Martinelli v. Travelers Ins. Cos.,", "paragraph_id": "para_595" }, { "text": "687 A.2d 443 (R.I. 1996), and Rhode Island", "paragraph_id": "para_596" }, { "text": "law, must an employee, who is operating her", "paragraph_id": "para_597" }, { "text": "own personal vehicle while in the scope of her", "paragraph_id": "para_598" }, { "text": "employment, be considered a named insured", "paragraph_id": "para_599" }, { "text": "under her employer's auto insurance policy,", "paragraph_id": "para_600" }, { "text": "despite policy language to the contrary?", "paragraph_id": "para_601" }, { "text": "This approach is particularly warranted here for two reasons.", "paragraph_id": "para_602" }, { "text": "First, federalism concerns and principles of prudence are at their", "paragraph_id": "para_603" }, { "text": "peak when a federal case \"raises difficult questions of state law", "paragraph_id": "para_604" }, { "text": "bearing on important matters of state policy,\" as is the case here.", "paragraph_id": "para_605" }, { "text": "Smith v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 88 F.4th 40, 57 (1st Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_606" }, { "text": "2023) (quoting Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 32 (1993)). Second,", "paragraph_id": "para_607" }, { "text": "as is also the case here, where \"the policy considerations at play", "paragraph_id": "para_608" }, { "text": "do not squarely favor a particular outcome,\" certification allows", "paragraph_id": "para_609" }, { "text": "- 23 -", "paragraph_id": "para_610" }, { "text": "the state's highest court to make that policy judgment itself.", "paragraph_id": "para_611" }, { "text": "Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 81 F.4th 73, 76 (1st Cir. 2023) (per", "paragraph_id": "para_612" }, { "text": "curiam).", "paragraph_id": "para_613" }, { "text": "The Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute Issue", "paragraph_id": "para_614" }, { "text": "While now on the other side of the Martinelli issue, our", "paragraph_id": "para_615" }, { "text": "work is still not yet done. Remember that Roberge argues that,", "paragraph_id": "para_616" }, { "text": "separate and apart from Martinelli, the Rhode Island Uninsured", "paragraph_id": "para_617" }, { "text": "Motorist Statute, R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1, also requires that", "paragraph_id": "para_618" }, { "text": "she be afforded UM/UIM coverage under the Policy. Let's break", "paragraph_id": "para_619" }, { "text": "that argument down.", "paragraph_id": "para_620" }, { "text": "The Policy does not simply provide UM/UIM coverage; it", "paragraph_id": "para_621" }, { "text": "also provides liability coverage. As was the case with UM/UIM", "paragraph_id": "para_622" }, { "text": "coverage, to be entitled to liability coverage under the Policy,", "paragraph_id": "para_623" }, { "text": "a claimant must be considered an \"[i]nsured.\" Pursuant to a", "paragraph_id": "para_624" }, { "text": "Business Auto Extension Endorsement, however, the definition of", "paragraph_id": "para_625" }, { "text": "\"[i]nsured\" for purposes of liability coverage extends to \"[a]ny", "paragraph_id": "para_626" }, { "text": "'employee' of yours . . . while using a covered 'auto' you don't", "paragraph_id": "para_627" }, { "text": "own, hire or borrow in your business or your personal affairs.\"", "paragraph_id": "para_628" }, { "text": "As for the definition of \"covered 'auto'\" as used here, the State", "paragraph_id": "para_629" }, { "text": "selected symbol \"1\" for liability coverage, which (remember) means", "paragraph_id": "para_630" }, { "text": "\"[a]ny '[a]uto.'\" Because Roberge's car falls within this", "paragraph_id": "para_631" }, { "text": "expansive definition of \"covered 'auto'\" and she was using it in", "paragraph_id": "para_632" }, { "text": "the course of her employment for the State, she is an \"[i]nsured\"", "paragraph_id": "para_633" }, { "text": "for purposes of liability coverage under the Policy (a conclusion", "paragraph_id": "para_634" }, { "text": "- 24 -", "paragraph_id": "para_635" }, { "text": "upon which all parties -- and we -- agree). And, notably, the", "paragraph_id": "para_636" }, { "text": "State selected a limit of $1,000,000 per accident for liability", "paragraph_id": "para_637" }, { "text": "coverage.", "paragraph_id": "para_638" }, { "text": "Against that liability-coverage backdrop, we turn now to", "paragraph_id": "para_639" }, { "text": "the Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute, which provides, in", "paragraph_id": "para_640" }, { "text": "relevant part, that:", "paragraph_id": "para_641" }, { "text": "No policy insuring against loss resulting from", "paragraph_id": "para_642" }, { "text": "liability imposed by law for . . . bodily", "paragraph_id": "para_643" }, { "text": "injury . . . suffered by any person arising", "paragraph_id": "para_644" }, { "text": "out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of", "paragraph_id": "para_645" }, { "text": "a motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued", "paragraph_id": "para_646" }, { "text": "for delivery in this state with respect to any", "paragraph_id": "para_647" }, { "text": "motor vehicle registered or principally", "paragraph_id": "para_648" }, { "text": "garaged in this state unless coverage is", "paragraph_id": "para_649" }, { "text": "provided in or supplemental to the policy", "paragraph_id": "para_650" }, { "text": ". . . for the protection of persons insured", "paragraph_id": "para_651" }, { "text": "under the policy who are legally entitled to", "paragraph_id": "para_652" }, { "text": "recover damages from owners or operators of", "paragraph_id": "para_653" }, { "text": "uninsured motor vehicles and hit-and-run motor", "paragraph_id": "para_654" }, { "text": "vehicles because of property damage, bodily", "paragraph_id": "para_655" }, { "text": "injury, sickness, or disease, including death,", "paragraph_id": "para_656" }, { "text": "resulting from that injury, sickness, or", "paragraph_id": "para_657" }, { "text": "disease. The insurer shall provide uninsured", "paragraph_id": "para_658" }, { "text": "motorist coverage in an amount equal to the", "paragraph_id": "para_659" }, { "text": "insured's bodily injury liability limits. The", "paragraph_id": "para_660" }, { "text": "named insured shall have the option of", "paragraph_id": "para_661" }, { "text": "selecting a limit in writing less than the", "paragraph_id": "para_662" }, { "text": "bodily injury liability coverage, but in no", "paragraph_id": "para_663" }, { "text": "event less than the limits set forth in", "paragraph_id": "para_664" }, { "text": "§ 31-47-2(13)(i)(A), unless the named insured", "paragraph_id": "para_665" }, { "text": "is purchasing only the minimum coverage", "paragraph_id": "para_666" }, { "text": "required by compulsory insurance provisions of", "paragraph_id": "para_667" }, { "text": "the general laws, in which case the limit can", "paragraph_id": "para_668" }, { "text": "be reduced to zero, but only after signing an", "paragraph_id": "para_669" }, { "text": "advisory notice approved by the director of", "paragraph_id": "para_670" }, { "text": "business regulation concerning the hazard of", "paragraph_id": "para_671" }, { "text": "uninsured and underinsured motorists.", "paragraph_id": "para_672" }, { "text": "R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(a) (emphases ours). The statute defines", "paragraph_id": "para_673" }, { "text": "\"policy insuring against loss\" as \"a policy that provides primary", "paragraph_id": "para_674" }, { "text": "- 25 -", "paragraph_id": "para_675" }, { "text": "coverage for the insured motor vehicle.\" Id. § 27-7-2.1(c)(1).", "paragraph_id": "para_676" }, { "text": "Additionally, the statute requires that, once the insured selects", "paragraph_id": "para_677" }, { "text": "the amount of UM/UIM coverage it wants, the insurer is \"required", "paragraph_id": "para_678" }, { "text": "to notify the policyholder, in any renewal, reinstatement,", "paragraph_id": "para_679" }, { "text": "substitute, amended, altered, modified, transfer, or replacement", "paragraph_id": "para_680" }, { "text": "policy, as to the availability of that coverage or optional", "paragraph_id": "para_681" }, { "text": "limits.\" Id. § 27-7-2.1(d).", "paragraph_id": "para_682" }, { "text": "Putting two and two together, Roberge argues that,", "paragraph_id": "para_683" }, { "text": "because the Policy provided her liability coverage in the amount", "paragraph_id": "para_684" }, { "text": "of $1,000,000 and the Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute", "paragraph_id": "para_685" }, { "text": "requires that insurers provide UM/UIM coverage in an amount equal", "paragraph_id": "para_686" }, { "text": "to the policy's liability coverage limits (unless the insured", "paragraph_id": "para_687" }, { "text": "specifically selects a lesser amount), she is due UM/UIM coverage", "paragraph_id": "para_688" }, { "text": "in the amount of $1,000,000. Taking her logic one step further,", "paragraph_id": "para_689" }, { "text": "she ultimately argues that Travelers denying her UM/UIM altogether", "paragraph_id": "para_690" }, { "text": "and limiting UM/UIM coverage to \"[o]wned '[a]utos' [o]nly\"", "paragraph_id": "para_691" }, { "text": "violates the public policy underlying the Rhode Island Uninsured", "paragraph_id": "para_692" }, { "text": "Motorist Statute and, therefore, that provision of the Policy must", "paragraph_id": "para_693" }, { "text": "be rendered void.", "paragraph_id": "para_694" }, { "text": "Naturally, Travelers disagrees. In its view, the public", "paragraph_id": "para_695" }, { "text": "policy of the Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute does not", "paragraph_id": "para_696" }, { "text": "require that insurers provide insureds with UM/UIM coverage that", "paragraph_id": "para_697" }, { "text": "protects them in every factual scenario. Moreover, Roberge --", "paragraph_id": "para_698" }, { "text": "Travelers says -- has pointed to no Rhode Island Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_699" }, { "text": "- 26 -", "paragraph_id": "para_700" }, { "text": "decision holding that it violates public policy to deny UM/UIM", "paragraph_id": "para_701" }, { "text": "coverage in circumstances such as those at issue here.", "paragraph_id": "para_702" }, { "text": "That last part is true enough: Roberge hasn't proffered", "paragraph_id": "para_703" }, { "text": "any Rhode Island Supreme Court case addressing facts and issues", "paragraph_id": "para_704" }, { "text": "similar to those we face today (and our own research has turned up", "paragraph_id": "para_705" }, { "text": "none either). All that said, there are many Rhode Island Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_706" }, { "text": "Court cases out there adjudicating public policy challenges to", "paragraph_id": "para_707" }, { "text": "UM/UIM insurance policy provisions under the Rhode Island", "paragraph_id": "para_708" }, { "text": "Uninsured Motorist Statute. See Am. States Ins. Co. v. LaFlam, 69", "paragraph_id": "para_709" }, { "text": "A.3d 831, 835-37 (R.I. 2013) (surveying Rhode Island Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_710" }, { "text": "cases addressing public policy challenges under the Rhode Island", "paragraph_id": "para_711" }, { "text": "Uninsured Motorist Statute). And from those cases, several", "paragraph_id": "para_712" }, { "text": "overarching principles can be gleaned.", "paragraph_id": "para_713" }, { "text": "To begin, the Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute", "paragraph_id": "para_714" }, { "text": "has a \"broad statutory purpose,\" Pin Pin H. Su. v. Kemper Ins.", "paragraph_id": "para_715" }, { "text": "Cos./Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 431 A.2d 416, 419 (R.I. 1981), which", "paragraph_id": "para_716" }, { "text": "is \"to afford protection to the insured against economic loss", "paragraph_id": "para_717" }, { "text": "resulting from injuries sustained by reason of the negligent", "paragraph_id": "para_718" }, { "text": "operation of uninsured motor vehicles or hit-and-run motor", "paragraph_id": "para_719" }, { "text": "vehicles,\" Henderson v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 35 A.3d 902, 906 (R.I.", "paragraph_id": "para_720" }, { "text": "2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). \"Contracts", "paragraph_id": "para_721" }, { "text": "for uninsured-motorist coverage . . . must be construed in light", "paragraph_id": "para_722" }, { "text": "of the public policy mandated by the Legislature,\" and in so doing,", "paragraph_id": "para_723" }, { "text": "\"[t]he primary object remains indemnification for an insured's", "paragraph_id": "para_724" }, { "text": "- 27 -", "paragraph_id": "para_725" }, { "text": "loss rather than defeat of his or her claim.\" DiTata v. Aetna", "paragraph_id": "para_726" }, { "text": "Cas. & Sur. Co., 542 A.2d 245, 247 (R.I. 1988). Nevertheless,", "paragraph_id": "para_727" }, { "text": "\"[p]ublic policy in this area . . . is not entirely one-sided\" and", "paragraph_id": "para_728" }, { "text": "courts must be \"mindful that [t]he legislative purpose of the", "paragraph_id": "para_729" }, { "text": "statute was not to guard against all economic loss, and [the Rhode", "paragraph_id": "para_730" }, { "text": "Island Supreme Court has] held that reasonable limitations will be", "paragraph_id": "para_731" }, { "text": "imposed on the construction of the uninsured-motorist statute to", "paragraph_id": "para_732" }, { "text": "afford[] insurers some financial protection from unwarranted", "paragraph_id": "para_733" }, { "text": "claims.\" Am. States Ins. Co., 69 A.3d at 835 (third and fifth", "paragraph_id": "para_734" }, { "text": "alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks", "paragraph_id": "para_735" }, { "text": "omitted). Ultimately, \"the determination of whether a particular", "paragraph_id": "para_736" }, { "text": "contractual provision violates public policy is case-specific.\"", "paragraph_id": "para_737" }, { "text": "Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_738" }, { "text": "Undergoing that case-specific inquiry, the Rhode Island", "paragraph_id": "para_739" }, { "text": "Supreme Court has indicated that certain types of provisions do", "paragraph_id": "para_740" }, { "text": "offend public policy, while others don't. On the", "paragraph_id": "para_741" }, { "text": "offensive-to-public-policy side are UM/UIM policy provisions that", "paragraph_id": "para_742" }, { "text": "(1) \"restrict coverage afforded by the uninsured-motorist", "paragraph_id": "para_743" }, { "text": "statute\"; (2) \"curtail an insured's recovery in instances in which", "paragraph_id": "para_744" }, { "text": "the insured has not recovered the amount of his or her actual", "paragraph_id": "para_745" }, { "text": "loss\"; (3) \"exclude[ certain types of vehicles] from the definition", "paragraph_id": "para_746" }, { "text": "of 'uninsured motor vehicle'\"; and (4) \"deny UM/UIM coverage on", "paragraph_id": "para_747" }, { "text": "impermissible grounds.\" Id. at 836 (citations omitted). On the", "paragraph_id": "para_748" }, { "text": "not-offensive-to-public-policy side are UM/UIM policy provisions", "paragraph_id": "para_749" }, { "text": "- 28 -", "paragraph_id": "para_750" }, { "text": "that (1) \"seek to prevent an insured's double recovery\"; (2)", "paragraph_id": "para_751" }, { "text": "\"exclude UM/UIM coverage when the insured's injuries occur in a", "paragraph_id": "para_752" }, { "text": "vehicle that the insured (or a family member) owns, but elects not", "paragraph_id": "para_753" }, { "text": "to insure under the policy\"; and (3) \"preclude[] coverage based on", "paragraph_id": "para_754" }, { "text": "a particular use of an insured vehicle by the policyholder.\" Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_755" }, { "text": "at 836-37 (alteration in original) (citations omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_756" }, { "text": "Even with these guideposts, however, we do not feel", "paragraph_id": "para_757" }, { "text": "confident in our ability \"to predict [the Rhode Island Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_758" }, { "text": "Court's] course\" on the question of whether this particular UM/UIM", "paragraph_id": "para_759" }, { "text": "provision violates public policy -- try as we might. Hosp. San", "paragraph_id": "para_760" }, { "text": "Antonio, Inc., 47 F.4th at 6 (citation omitted). To spell it out,", "paragraph_id": "para_761" }, { "text": "the statutory text and just-surveyed caselaw seem to point in", "paragraph_id": "para_762" }, { "text": "different directions. On the one hand, it appears to us that, as", "paragraph_id": "para_763" }, { "text": "a matter of statutory text, Roberge has a persuasive argument that", "paragraph_id": "para_764" }, { "text": "the Policy here might not comply with the Rhode Island Uninsured", "paragraph_id": "para_765" }, { "text": "Motorist Statute's requirement that it \"provide[] [coverage] in or", "paragraph_id": "para_766" }, { "text": "supplemental to the policy, for bodily injury or death . . . for", "paragraph_id": "para_767" }, { "text": "the protection of persons insured under the policy . . . in an", "paragraph_id": "para_768" }, { "text": "amount equal to the insured's bodily injury liability limits.\"", "paragraph_id": "para_769" }, { "text": "R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(a). This requirement suggests that the", "paragraph_id": "para_770" }, { "text": "Statute is concerned with ensuring that there be a certain symmetry", "paragraph_id": "para_771" }, { "text": "between the persons afforded liability and UM/UIM coverage in a", "paragraph_id": "para_772" }, { "text": "given insurance policy. Here, though, Roberge is a \"person\" who", "paragraph_id": "para_773" }, { "text": "is \"insured under the policy,\" insofar as she is an insured for", "paragraph_id": "para_774" }, { "text": "- 29 -", "paragraph_id": "para_775" }, { "text": "liability-coverage purposes while operating her own car in the", "paragraph_id": "para_776" }, { "text": "course of her employment, yet she's not an insured for", "paragraph_id": "para_777" }, { "text": "UM/UIM-coverage purposes in those exact same circumstances. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_778" }, { "text": "Therefore, application of the contract here does not simply \"limit", "paragraph_id": "para_779" }, { "text": "an insured's recovery under the UM/UIM statute,\" which we ourselves", "paragraph_id": "para_780" }, { "text": "have recognized \"Rhode Island has . . . a strong public policy", "paragraph_id": "para_781" }, { "text": "against,\" but serves to completely prevent any type of", "paragraph_id": "para_782" }, { "text": "UM/UIM-coverage recovery whatsoever, despite Roberge clearly being", "paragraph_id": "para_783" }, { "text": "an \"[i]nsured\" for liability-coverage purposes. Am. States Ins.", "paragraph_id": "para_784" }, { "text": "Co. v. LaFlam, 672 F.3d 38, 39 (1st Cir. 2012) (collecting cases).", "paragraph_id": "para_785" }, { "text": "This -- at the very least arguably -- flies in the face of the", "paragraph_id": "para_786" }, { "text": "Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute's \"broad statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_787" }, { "text": "purpose.\" Pin Pin H. Su., 431 A.2d at 419.", "paragraph_id": "para_788" }, { "text": "On the other hand, Travelers also makes a good point", "paragraph_id": "para_789" }, { "text": "that the Rhode Island Supreme Court has previously greenlit", "paragraph_id": "para_790" }, { "text": "contractual provisions that exclude certain individuals from", "paragraph_id": "para_791" }, { "text": "UM/UIM coverage and explained the following:", "paragraph_id": "para_792" }, { "text": "Neither the terms of the statute nor the", "paragraph_id": "para_793" }, { "text": "public policy expressed therein mandates what", "paragraph_id": "para_794" }, { "text": "class of persons must be extended coverage,", "paragraph_id": "para_795" }, { "text": "nor do they disallow any restriction on that", "paragraph_id": "para_796" }, { "text": "class. Rather, the designation of what", "paragraph_id": "para_797" }, { "text": "persons are insured for purposes of this", "paragraph_id": "para_798" }, { "text": "statute is left to the terms of the particular", "paragraph_id": "para_799" }, { "text": "insurance policy.", "paragraph_id": "para_800" }, { "text": "Malo v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 459 A.2d 954, 956-57 (R.I. 1983).", "paragraph_id": "para_801" }, { "text": "For example, in Henderson, the Court upheld an exclusionary", "paragraph_id": "para_802" }, { "text": "- 30 -", "paragraph_id": "para_803" }, { "text": "provision which denied the named insured UM/UIM coverage if the", "paragraph_id": "para_804" }, { "text": "vehicle they were injured in was being used \"to carry persons or", "paragraph_id": "para_805" }, { "text": "property for a fee.\" 35 A.3d at 904, 906-09. And in Malo, the", "paragraph_id": "para_806" }, { "text": "Court upheld another exclusionary provision which denied UM/UIM", "paragraph_id": "para_807" }, { "text": "coverage to relatives of the named insured who owned a vehicle not", "paragraph_id": "para_808" }, { "text": "insured by the policy. 459 A.2d at 955-57. However, in neither", "paragraph_id": "para_809" }, { "text": "of these cases did the Rhode Island Supreme Court provide any", "paragraph_id": "para_810" }, { "text": "indication that the plaintiffs did not have liability coverage", "paragraph_id": "para_811" }, { "text": "under the respective polices in those particular circumstances.", "paragraph_id": "para_812" }, { "text": "If the plaintiffs in fact had liability coverage, then Roberge's", "paragraph_id": "para_813" }, { "text": "assertion that the Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute", "paragraph_id": "para_814" }, { "text": "requires a symmetry between the individuals provided liability and", "paragraph_id": "para_815" }, { "text": "UM/UIM coverage might not ultimately prove dispositive of the", "paragraph_id": "para_816" }, { "text": "contrary-to-public-policy issue. In the end, however, there is no", "paragraph_id": "para_817" }, { "text": "Rhode Island Supreme Court case \"directly on point.\" Am. States", "paragraph_id": "para_818" }, { "text": "Ins. Co., 672 F.3d at 43.", "paragraph_id": "para_819" }, { "text": "Looking to other jurisdictions also doesn't provide us", "paragraph_id": "para_820" }, { "text": "the necessary guidance as to how the Rhode Island Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_821" }, { "text": "would decide this issue. To be sure, there are some courts that", "paragraph_id": "para_822" }, { "text": "have interpreted the uninsured motorist statutes of other states", "paragraph_id": "para_823" }, { "text": "to provide UM/UIM coverage to employees of the named insured when", "paragraph_id": "para_824" }, { "text": "the employees are injured in the course of their employment. See,", "paragraph_id": "para_825" }, { "text": "e.g., Skarbrevik v. Pers. Representative of Est. of Brown, No.", "paragraph_id": "para_826" }, { "text": "W2014-00809-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 7184664, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. of App.", "paragraph_id": "para_827" }, { "text": "- 31 -", "paragraph_id": "para_828" }, { "text": "Nov. 16, 2015); LaRoche v. State Farm Ins. Co., No. Civ.A. CV", "paragraph_id": "para_829" }, { "text": "02-271, 2003 WL 23185889, at *3 (Me. Super. Ct. Dec. 19, 2003).", "paragraph_id": "para_830" }, { "text": "But the Rhode Island Supreme Court has admitted before that its", "paragraph_id": "para_831" }, { "text": "decisions in the arena of UM/UIM coverage \"may not comport with", "paragraph_id": "para_832" }, { "text": "those in other jurisdictions.\" Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Viti,", "paragraph_id": "para_833" }, { "text": "850 A.2d 104, 108 (R.I. 2004).12", "paragraph_id": "para_834" }, { "text": "This issue, therefore, meets the requirements for", "paragraph_id": "para_835" }, { "text": "certification to a T. Not only is the Rhode Island Supreme Court's", "paragraph_id": "para_836" }, { "text": "Rule of Appellate Procedure satisfied (to recap, an answer on this", "paragraph_id": "para_837" }, { "text": "question would be outcome-determinative and there's no on-point", "paragraph_id": "para_838" }, { "text": "Rhode Island precedent), R.I. Sup. Ct. R., Art. I, R. 6(a), but", "paragraph_id": "para_839" }, { "text": "also our own requirements are satisfied (to recap, Rhode Island", "paragraph_id": "para_840" }, { "text": "law is not sufficiently clear for us to predict the Rhode Island", "paragraph_id": "para_841" }, { "text": "Supreme Court's answer), R.I. Truck Ctr., LLC, 92 F.4th at 348.", "paragraph_id": "para_842" }, { "text": "Furthermore, the same federalism and prudence concerns", "paragraph_id": "para_843" }, { "text": "that we mentioned in relation to the Martinelli issue are equally", "paragraph_id": "para_844" }, { "text": "as present here. The resolution of this issue \"will certainly", "paragraph_id": "para_845" }, { "text": "impact future cases.\" Am. States Ins. Co., 672 F.3d at 44", "paragraph_id": "para_846" }, { "text": "12 To add to the complexity, Roberge also raises a litany of", "paragraph_id": "para_847" }, { "text": "sub-arguments relating to the application of the Rhode Island", "paragraph_id": "para_848" }, { "text": "Uninsured Motorist Statute. For example, Roberge argues that", "paragraph_id": "para_849" }, { "text": "Travelers did not comply with its statutory requirement \"to notify", "paragraph_id": "para_850" }, { "text": "the [State], in any renewal, reinstatement, substitute, amended,", "paragraph_id": "para_851" }, { "text": "altered, modified, transfer, or replacement policy, as to the", "paragraph_id": "para_852" }, { "text": "availability of [UM/UIM] coverage or optional limits.\" R.I. Gen.", "paragraph_id": "para_853" }, { "text": "Laws § 27-7-2.1(d). These primarily factual disputes need not be", "paragraph_id": "para_854" }, { "text": "resolved at this juncture.", "paragraph_id": "para_855" }, { "text": "- 32 -", "paragraph_id": "para_856" }, { "text": "(citation omitted). And allowing state courts to answer unresolved", "paragraph_id": "para_857" }, { "text": "questions of state law furthers federalism interests underlying", "paragraph_id": "para_858" }, { "text": "our legal system. Id. That is especially true when the unresolved", "paragraph_id": "para_859" }, { "text": "questions involve policy considerations that don't fit neatly in", "paragraph_id": "para_860" }, { "text": "one bucket. See Patel, 81 F.4th at 76. We, therefore, find it", "paragraph_id": "para_861" }, { "text": "prudent to certify the following question to the Rhode Island", "paragraph_id": "para_862" }, { "text": "Supreme Court:", "paragraph_id": "para_863" }, { "text": "Does it violate the Rhode Island Uninsured", "paragraph_id": "para_864" }, { "text": "Motorist Statute, R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1,", "paragraph_id": "para_865" }, { "text": "and Rhode Island public policy when an", "paragraph_id": "para_866" }, { "text": "employer's auto insurance policy provides", "paragraph_id": "para_867" }, { "text": "liability coverage to employees in the scope", "paragraph_id": "para_868" }, { "text": "of their employment, but does not provide", "paragraph_id": "para_869" }, { "text": "UM/UIM coverage to employees in the scope of", "paragraph_id": "para_870" }, { "text": "their employment based upon the auto involved?", "paragraph_id": "para_871" }, { "text": "CERTIFICATION", "paragraph_id": "para_872" }, { "text": "To summarize, in light of the foregoing, we certify the", "paragraph_id": "para_873" }, { "text": "following two questions13 to the Rhode Island Supreme Court:", "paragraph_id": "para_874" }, { "text": "(1) In light of Martinelli v. Travelers Ins.", "paragraph_id": "para_875" }, { "text": "Cos., 687 A.2d 443 (R.I. 1996), and Rhode", "paragraph_id": "para_876" }, { "text": "Island law, must an employee, who is operating", "paragraph_id": "para_877" }, { "text": "her own personal vehicle while in the scope of", "paragraph_id": "para_878" }, { "text": "her employment, be considered a named insured", "paragraph_id": "para_879" }, { "text": "under her employer's auto insurance policy,", "paragraph_id": "para_880" }, { "text": "despite policy language to the contrary?", "paragraph_id": "para_881" }, { "text": "(2) Does it violate the Rhode Island Uninsured", "paragraph_id": "para_882" }, { "text": "Motorist Statute, R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1,", "paragraph_id": "para_883" }, { "text": "and Rhode Island public policy when an", "paragraph_id": "para_884" }, { "text": "employer's auto insurance policy provides", "paragraph_id": "para_885" }, { "text": "liability coverage to employees in the scope", "paragraph_id": "para_886" }, { "text": "of their employment, but does not provide", "paragraph_id": "para_887" }, { "text": "13 We are grateful to the parties for their briefing and input", "paragraph_id": "para_888" }, { "text": "as to which questions should be certified to the Rhode Island", "paragraph_id": "para_889" }, { "text": "Supreme Court.", "paragraph_id": "para_890" }, { "text": "- 33 -", "paragraph_id": "para_891" }, { "text": "UM/UIM coverage to employees in the scope of", "paragraph_id": "para_892" }, { "text": "their employment based upon the auto involved?", "paragraph_id": "para_893" }, { "text": "We would welcome any further guidance from the Rhode Island Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_894" }, { "text": "Court on any other relevant aspect of Rhode Island law that it", "paragraph_id": "para_895" }, { "text": "believes would aid in the proper resolution of the issues presented", "paragraph_id": "para_896" }, { "text": "here.", "paragraph_id": "para_897" }, { "text": "The clerk of this Court is directed to forward to the", "paragraph_id": "para_898" }, { "text": "Rhode Island Supreme Court, under the official seal of this Court,", "paragraph_id": "para_899" }, { "text": "a copy of the certified questions, this opinion, the district", "paragraph_id": "para_900" }, { "text": "court's opinion, and the merits briefs and appendix filed by the", "paragraph_id": "para_901" }, { "text": "parties. We retain jurisdiction over this case pending resolution", "paragraph_id": "para_902" }, { "text": "of these certified questions. The case shall be stayed until", "paragraph_id": "para_903" }, { "text": "further order of the Court. No costs are awarded at this time.", "paragraph_id": "para_904" } ], "word_count": 7879, "cites": [ "507 U.S. 25", "952 F.3d 376", "92 F.4th 330", "106 F.4th 122", "977 F.3d 69", "47 F.4th 1", "88 F.4th 40", "81 F.4th 73", "672 F.3d 38" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "1fce2ac1f24af9fc3b042f51ecd46a9e53c80b1c2f3213189463daea29cb1608", "source_url": "https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1040P-01A.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-06T08:54:47.592+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca1-24-1040-2026-09-11", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-24-1040-2026-09-11", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-24-1040-2026-09-11", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca1-24-1040-2026-09-11", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "1fce2ac1f24af9fc3b042f51ecd46a9e53c80b1c2f3213189463daea29cb1608", "recomputed_sha256": "1fce2ac1f24af9fc3b042f51ecd46a9e53c80b1c2f3213189463daea29cb1608", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-07T04:30:23.984Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:5ac3c2e486a449a266efe5a6d190906abea22019bf929ccff09c66872c7f64a4", "version": "legal-2026-10-06", "expires": "2026-10-08T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-06+legal-2026-10-06+2026-10-06T22:18:05", "content_hash": "sha256:5ac3c2e486a449a266efe5a6d190906abea22019bf929ccff09c66872c7f64a4", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-07T05:30:24.137Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-24-1040-2026-09-11", "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering" }