Cioffi v. Lancer Mgmt. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 August 2020
• Docket Number: C.A. No. KC-2019-1160
• Parties: CARLO CIOFFI v. LANCER MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC.
• Court: Rhode Island Superior Court

CARLO CIOFFI v. LANCER MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC.

C.A. No. KC-2019-1160

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS KENT, SC. SUPERIOR COURT

August 21, 2020

DECISION

LANPHEAR, J. This matter came on for hearing before Mr. Justice Lanphear on July 27, 2020 on Defendant Lancer Management Company, Inc.'s (Lancer) Motion for Summary Judgment. Additional issues arose at the hearing, and the Court reserved allowing each party with the opportunity to supplement. That time has passed. No supplemental documentation was received.

In brief, Mr. Cioffi was a driver for East Providence Livery, Inc. (EPL). In July of 2017, EPL's insurance was being reviewed for renewal. Defendant is the insurer and its underwriters reviewed the various drivers' accident records through the Rhode Island Department of Motor Vehicles. Lancer concluded that Mr. Cioffi had been involved in four motor vehicle collisions and was "unacceptable" for coverage. EPL terminated Mr. Cioffi on July 31, 2017.

Mr. Cioffi immediately claimed that he was not responsible for the collisions. Lancer was told of this promptly. (Email from Edward Dunbar to Philip Zozzaro, July 31, 2017.) In three days, Mr. Cioffi had submitted accident reports showing that he was rear-ended on each occasion. These were promptly passed on to Lancer. (Email from Edward Dunbar to Philip Zozzaro, Aug. 3, 2017.) Mr. Cioffi lost income at EPL and was unable to obtain another job at one other company. It is alleged that Lancer continued to refuse coverage for Mr. Cioffi's driving.

Mr. Cioffi contends, without proof, that the Rhode Island Registry had a technical glitch on July 4, 2017 and as a result, Lancer reinstated other drivers to its insurance. Defendant confirms that it verified the registry error which harmed Mr. Cioffi in March of 2018—eight months after the employment ended.

Mr. Cioffi filed suit for negligence, and Lancer now moves for summary judgment based on the issue of foreseeability. The Court applies the factors cited by our high court to determine foreseeability.

"In considering whether a duty exists, among the factors considered are (1) the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, (2) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered an injury, (3) the closeness of connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, (4) the policy of preventing future harm, and (5) the extent of the burden to the defendant and the consequences to the community for imposing a duty to exercise care with

...