Achille v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 83-323-A

• Decision Date: 14 March 1986
• Docket Number: No. 83-323-A,83-323-A
• Citation: 505 A.2d 1173
• Parties: Janice ACHILLE v. COLONIAL PENN INSURANCE COMPANY. ppeal.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 1173

505 A.2d 1173

Janice ACHILLE v. COLONIAL PENN INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 83-323-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

March 14, 1986.

Lauren E. Jones, Providence, for plaintiff.

John J. Finan, Pawtucket, for defendant.

OPINION

KELLEHER, Justice.

The plaintiff in this Superior Court civil action is before us on an appeal from a trial justice's grant of the defendant's motion for a directed verdict that was made at the conclusion of the presentation of the plaintiff's evidence. Her suit is based upon the uninsured-motorist provisions of an automobile liability policy issued by the defendant to the plaintiff's husband. Hereafter we shall refer to the plaintiff as "Janice" and the defendant as "the insurer" or "Colonial Penn."

The incident precipitating this litigation occurred in Cranston during the early evening hours of September 28, 1977, in the parking lot of a Burger King restaurant. When Janice arrived at the parking lot, she had as passengers her teenaged daughter and two of the daughter's girl friends. The quartet spent the time in the parking lot enjoying a take-out snack. The snacking took place in a 1975 Buick Century sedan that was registered in the name of Janice's husband. As Janice was about to leave the Buick and deposit the remnants of the repast in a nearby container, the Buick was struck by a 1969 Camaro.

At the trial the Camaro's driver, Lucy Carland, acknowledged that she had backed into the Buick. She also told the jury that the Camaro was registered in the name of her husband, Arthur. During direct examination, Mrs. Carland testified that to the best of her knowledge the Camaro was not insured. Later, in cross-examination, when she was asked if at the time of the parking-lot collision she had told Janice that she was insured, Mrs. Carland responded, "I thought that I was but it had run out."

When Janice was testifying, her trial counsel attempted to introduce into evidence a form entitled "Declaration Sheet" that she had received in the mail from Colonial Penn. The trial justice refused to allow the sheet to be introduced into evidence because it had not been properly authenticated. Shortly thereafter Janice's attorney announced, "Plaintiff rests."

In granting the insurer's motion for a directed verdict, the trial justice explained his action by commenting, "[T]he plaintiff has failed to prove that she is an insured under an uninsured motorist provision applying to this particular incident." Earlier, the trial justice had told plaintiff's counsel, "[Y]ou have to prove both--that not only the car is uninsured but the driver is uninsured, and you haven't done that * * * in this case."

In its consideration of a grant of a directed verdict, this court is required, as was the trial justice, to forego any consideration of the weight of the evidence or credibility of the witnesses but view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff to determine if there was any competent, credible evidence that would support Janice's claim against Colonial Penn. If there was such evidence, then the motion for a directed verdict should have been denied and the controversy submitted to the jury. Thomas v. Amway Corp., 488 A.2d 716, 718 (R.I.1985).

Initially, we turn our attention to the "Declaration Sheet" and the principles involved in determining its authenticity or lack thereof. The question of authenticity was considered in Brimbau v. Ausdale Equipment Rental Corp., 119 R.I. 14, 20, 376 A.2d 1058, 1061 (1977), where it was stressed that there was no need for direct testimony to establish a document's authenticity--that proof of any circumstances that would support a finding that the writing is genuine would suffice to authenticate the writing. It was also pointed out that proof of proper custody of the document is one accepted...