Nelson v. Allstate Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 11 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 2019-166-Appeal.,PC 17-2233,2019-166-Appeal. |
| Citation | 228 A.3d 983 |
| Parties | Robin E. NELSON v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Bernard P. Healy, Esq., for Plaintiff.
Peter A. Clarkin, Esq., Jeffrey D. Pethick, Esq., for Defendant.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.
The plaintiff, Robin Nelson, is challenging the dismissal of her breach-of-contract case against her homeowner's insurance carrier, the defendant, Allstate Insurance Company, after a hearing justice granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. This case came before the Supreme Court on May 13, 2020, via WebEx video conference pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issue raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After considering the parties' written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and that this case may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
On May 6, 2017, plaintiff's water heater leaked and flooded the basement of her residence in Providence. The plaintiff had a homeowner's insurance policy in place, purchased from defendant, to cover a variety of types of damage and loss at her residence. The defendant, however, declined to cover the damage to plaintiff's residence from the "burst" water heater because, defendant asserted, this peril was not a covered loss under plaintiff's policy. The plaintiff filed a complaint in Providence County Superior Court claiming that defendant had breached the insurance contract when it refused to provide coverage to plaintiff under the policy for the expenses she incurred from the repairs necessitated by the water heater malfunction.
In October 2018, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim failed as a matter of law because, under the unambiguous language of the policy, flooding of the interior of the residence caused by a defective water heater was not a loss that was covered by the policy. At the hearing held on defendant's motion in January 2019, plaintiff argued that the policy covered this damage because, while the policy language did not list sudden loss due to a malfunctioning water heater and explicitly excluded several types of water damage, the language did cover direct, sudden losses to the residence. The hearing justice concluded that the policy language was unambiguous and did not cover the loss claimed by plaintiff. Accordingly, the hearing justice granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal.1
"This Court will review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo , employing the same standards and rules used by the hearing justice." JHRW, LLC v. Seaport Studios, Inc. , 212 A.3d 168, 175 (R.I. 2019) (quoting Cancel v. City of Providence , 187 A.3d 347, 349 (R.I. 2018) ). "We will affirm a trial court's decision only if, after reviewing the admissible evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we conclude that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id. (quoting Cancel , 187 A.3d at 350 ). "Furthermore, the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving by competent evidence the existence of a disputed issue of material fact and cannot rest upon mere allegations or denials in the pleadings, mere conclusions or mere legal opinions." Id. (quoting Cancel , 187 A.3d at 350 ).
The plaintiff argues that the hearing justice erred when she concluded the policy did not cover the damage caused by the water heater malfunction. The plaintiff agrees that the language of her homeowner's insurance policy is unambiguous, but asserts that the policy clearly covers her loss because this kind of water damage is not among the types of loss explicitly excluded by the language of the policy. The plaintiff also asserts that it would be absurd for every conceivable type of loss to be explicitly listed in an insurance policy and that the "real issue is whether the loss secondary to water damage as a result of a water heater's failure[ ] is excluded."
"An insurance policy is contractual in nature." Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association of Rhode Island v. Charlesgate Nursing Center, L.P. , 115 A.3d 998, 1002 (R.I. 2015) (brackets omitted) (quoting Derderian v. Essex Insurance Co. , 44 A.3d 122, 127 (R.I. 2012) ). "Accordingly, when interpreting the disputed terms of an insurance policy, we must do so in accordance with the rules of construction that govern contracts." Id. "It is well-settled that this Court shall not depart from the literal language of the policy absent a finding that the policy is ambiguous." Id. (quoting Nunez v. Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Co. , 88 A.3d 1146, 1149 (R.I. 2014) ).
"In order to determine whether the terms of a policy are ambiguous, ‘we give words their plain, ordinary, and usual meaning.’ " Charlesgate Nursing Center , 115 A.3d at 1002 (quoting Derderian , 44 A.3d at 128 ). "The Court considers the policy in its entirety and does not establish ambiguity by viewing a word in isolation or by taking a phrase out of context." Id. (quoting Derderian , 44 A.3d at 128 ). While "this Court has clearly established that ‘[a] policy [deemed ambiguous] will be strictly construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer[,]’ " id. at 1003 (quoting Derderian , 44 A.3d at 127 ), the Court "shall refrain from engaging in mental gymnastics or from stretching the imagination to read ambiguity into a policy where none is present." Id. (quoting Koziol v. Peerless Insurance Company , 41 A.3d 647, 651 (R.I. 2012) ).
The parties agree that there are no material facts in dispute and that the only issue to be resolved in this case is whether, as a matter of law, the policy in question covered plaintiff's loss. The plaintiff's homeowner's insurance policy states, in pertinent part, the following:
The policy also includes a list of specific types of losses that are excluded from coverage, including:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Fay
...a motion for summary judgment de novo , employing the same standards and rules used by the hearing justice." Nelson v. Allstate Insurance Company , 228 A.3d 983, 984-85 (R.I. 2020) (quoting JHRW, LLC v. Seaport Studios, Inc. , 212 A.3d 168, 175 (R.I. 2019) ). "We will affirm a trial court's......
-
Regan Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Arbella Prot. Ins. Co.
...of Massachusetts in McGregor . It is well established that "[a]n insurance policy is contractual in nature." Nelson v. Allstate Insurance Company , 228 A.3d 983, 985 (R.I. 2020) (quoting Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association of Rhode Island v. Charlesgate Nursing Center, L.P. ,......
-
Dulong v. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...and rules used by the hearing justice." Bank of America, N.A. v. Fay , 242 A.3d 38, 42 (R.I. 2020) (quoting Nelson v. Allstate Insurance Company , 228 A.3d 983, 984-85 (R.I. 2020) ). "We will affirm a summary judgment if, after reviewing the admissible evidence in the light most favorable t......
-
Saint Elizabeth Home v. Gorham
...bore "the burden of proving by competent evidence the existence of a disputed issue of material fact[.]" Nelson v. Allstate Insurance Company , 228 A.3d 983, 985 (R.I. 2020) (quoting JHRW, LLC v. Seaport Studios, Inc. , 212 A.3d 168, 175 (R.I. 2019) ). She is not permitted to simply "rest u......