Dubis v. East Greenwich Fire Dist.
| Decision Date | 26 June 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-131-Appeal.,99-131-Appeal. |
| Citation | 754 A.2d 98 |
| Parties | Michael DUBIS v. EAST GREENWICH FIRE DISTRICT. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Present WEISBERGER, C.J., and LEDERBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS, and GOLDBERG, JJ.
Jeffrey S. Michaelson, Providence, Julius C. Michaelson, for plaintiff.
Scott T. Spear, Edmund L. Alves, Jr., Providence, for defendant.
The plaintiff, Michael Dubis, appeals from the entry of a cross-motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the East Greenwich Fire District (fire district), and from the denial of his own motion for summary judgment. At issue in this case is the proper method for calculating the cost-of-living allowance (COLA) benefits pursuant to an agreement between the plaintiff and the fire district. The case came before a single justice of this Court, who directed the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties and hearing the arguments of counsel, we are of the opinion that no such cause has been shown, and we proceed to resolve the appeal at this time.
On August 21, 1991, Michael Dubis (the plaintiff), a former firefighter employed by the fire district, was exposed to carbon monoxide gas, suffering a work-related injury as a result. In 1995, because of a physical disability resulting from his exposure to the carbon monoxide gas, he applied for a disability pension with the Rhode Island state employees' retirement system. The application was made pursuant to a provision in the collective bargaining agreement then in effect between the fire district and the East Greenwich Fire Fighters Local 3328, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO. On May 30, 1995, he terminated his employment with the fire district pursuant to a written agreement with the fire district that provided:
The plaintiff received a $25,176.00 disability pension from the state employees' retirement system. The above agreement provision automatically became effective because the state disability pension did not provide for a COLA. Thus, as required by the agreement, the fire district paid an additional $629.40 in COLA benefits to the plaintiff in the second year by using the first-year state pension amount as its base. The following year, rather than using as its base the entire pension from the previous year to calculate the COLA benefit, the fire district used only the previous year's COLA benefit; consequently, the plaintiff received a COLA payment of only $645.14, a mere $15.74 increase over that of the preceding year.
The plaintiff commenced this civil action against the fire district alleging a breach of his contract with the fire district. In addition, he sought a declaratory judgment on the method for calculating his COLA benefit. He then filed a motion for summary judgment. The fire district, contending that it was required to compound only the actual COLA benefits, responded by filing a cross-motion for summary judgment. The trial justice granted the fire district's motion and denied the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff appeals.
In this case, both parties moved for summary judgment. Because the facts were not in dispute and there existed no genuine issues of material fact, we review the record to determine whether either party...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Warwick Rollermagic Skating Center
...Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. v. Dial Media, Inc., 122 R.I. 571, 579, 410 A.2d 986, 991 (1980); see also Dubis v. East Greenwich Fire District, 754 A.2d 98, 100 (R.I.2000); Flynn v. Flynn, 615 A.2d 119, 121 (R.I.1992). As we explain in the next section of this opinion, we do not view the la......
-
Empire Merchandising Corp. v. Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc.
... ... Fox et al., ... Riding the Choppy Waters of East River: Economic Loss ... Doctrine Ten Years Later , ... ...
-
Empire Merch. Corp. v. Bancorp R.I. Inc.
... ... Fox et al., Riding the Choppy Waters of East River: Economic Loss Doctrine Ten Years Later , 64 Def ... ...
-
Cheaters, Inc. v. United Nat'l Ins. Co.
...at 649. We review the terms of an unambiguous contract in a de novo manner. Papudesu, 18 A.3d at 498; see also Dubis v. East Greenwich Fire District, 754 A.2d 98, 100 (R.I.2000); Clark–Fitzpatrick, Inc./Franki Foundation Co. v. Gill, 652 A.2d 440, 443 (R.I.1994) (“Contract interpretation is......