Metropolitan Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Tanasio, 96-403-A
| Decision Date | 18 December 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-403-A,96-403-A |
| Citation | 703 A.2d 1102 |
| Parties | METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Carlos TANASIO. ppeal. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Thomas R. Bender, David P. Whitman, Providence, for Plaintiff.
Daniel Flaherty, Warwick, for Defendant.
Before WEISBERGER, C.J., and LEDERBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS and GOLDBERG, JJ.
This case came before the Supreme Court on November 10, 1997, pursuant to an order directing both parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in the plaintiff's appeal from a Superior Court final judgment confirming an arbitration award should not be summarily decided.
After hearing the arguments of counsel and considering the memoranda submitted by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown. The issues raised in the appeal will be decided at this time.
On January 5, 1994, the defendant, Carlos Tanasio (Tanasio), was injured in an automobile accident with Santiago Valiente (Valiente). The defendant received $1,743 in medical payments from his own insurer, the plaintiff, Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Metropolitan). He also received $25,000 from the tortfeasor Valiente's insurance company in June 1995. That amount represented the limit of Valiente's policy.
Thereafter, Metropolitan entered into binding arbitration with Tanasio to determine the amount due under the underinsured-motorist provision in Tanasio's policy with Metropolitan. The arbitration panel determined that Tanasio's total damages were $33,000. The panel further found that prejudgment interest accrued from the time of the accident, amounting to a total of $7,590. The parties stipulated to the setoffs of the medical and the liability payments.
Both parties sought confirmation of the arbitration award in the Superior Court. However, they each computed interest on the award differently. Tanasio computed the interest on the total award and then subtracted the setoff amounts whereas Metropolitan first subtracted the setoff amounts and then computed the interest on the remainder. 1 At the hearing the trial justice, instead of choosing one of the methods employed by the parties, formulated a different method of computing interest. Under his method, Metropolitan was required to pay interest on the full amount of the $33,000 award until Tanasio received his medical payments from Metropolitan. Then interest was to be computed on the difference between the total award and the medical payments until such time as Tanasio received the liability payment from Valiente's insurer. At that time the balance due Tanasio was to be further reduced, and the interest was to be recomputed on the remaining award...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeVane v. Kennedy
... ... v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., 194 W.Va. 203, 207, 460 ... Westfield Ins. Co., 184 519 S.E.2d 632 W.Va. 331, 400 S.E.2d ... time of the insured occurrence, or the property from which the claim arises is permanently ... ...
-
Rhode Island Insurers' Insolvency Fund v. Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc.
... ... Rumford Property and Liability Insurance Co., 658 A.2d 506, 508 ... In Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Rhode Island Insurers' Insolvency Fund, ... ...
- INSURERS'FUND v. Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc.
-
Metropolitan Property and Cas. v. Barry
...calculation of prejudgment interest that this Court prescribed in Merrill, 706 A.2d at 1313, and in Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Tanasio, 703 A.2d 1102, 1104 (R.I. 1997)? If so, how? If not, how should the interest-calculation formula outlined in Merrill be applied in U......