Pacheco v. Massachusetts Cas. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-111-A,91-111-A |
| Citation | 610 A.2d 111 |
| Parties | Gabriel PACHECO v. MASSACHUSETTS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This matter comes before the Supreme Court on an appeal filed by the plaintiff, Gabriel Pacheco (Pacheco), from a judgment entered in Superior Court in favor of the defendant Salvatore Carvelli (Carvelli) following the granting of Carvelli's motion for summary judgment. We reverse.
On October 14, 1986, Pacheco filed a civil action in the Superior Court against defendants Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Company (MCIC) and Carvelli. On February 22, 1990, Carvelli filed a motion for summary judgment. Subsequent to a hearing, summary judgment was granted in favor of Carvelli by the trial justice. Following entry of judgment an appeal was timely filed by Pacheco.
On March 20, 1974, Pacheco allegedly had a discussion with Carvelli, an independent insurance salesperson, about obtaining a disability-insurance policy through MCIC. Pacheco recalled that during this discussion Carvelli assured him that he would be covered for life if he ever suffered a permanently disabling injury. Pacheco contends that he relied upon Carvelli's representation when he decided, on that date, to purchase through Carvelli a disability policy issued by MCIC.
Almost ten years after this conversation with Carvelli, in December of 1983, Pacheco was the victim of a shooting that left him paralyzed from the waist down. Pacheco subsequently filed for disability benefits pursuant to his policy with MCIC. Thereupon, MCIC began issuing to Pacheco benefit checks in the amount of $550 per month.
Pacheco recalls having a conversation with Carvelli in January or February of 1986 about the terms of the disability policy. Carvelli purportedly said to Pacheco, "Aren't you glad you bought the policy from me; at least you are covered for the rest of your life."
In August of 1986 Pacheco received a letter from MCIC notifying him that the enclosed check was the final disability payment to which he was entitled under the policy. Upon inquiry Pacheco discovered that the policy provided benefits for only thirty months rather than for life as Carvelli had represented the terms to him on March 20, 1974.
Pacheco initiated this action against both Carvelli and MCIC. The complaint sets forth three claims against Carvelli. Counts 4 and 5 allege that Carvelli breached the terms of an express contract with Pacheco to provide Pacheco with a policy that offered disability benefits for life. Count 6 alleges that Pacheco detrimentally relied on representations made by Carvelli when Pacheco decided to purchase the policy on March 20, 1974. In February of 1990 Carvelli moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Following a hearing thereon the trial justice granted Carvelli's motion.
The only issue before us is whether the trial justice erred in granting Carvelli's motion for summary judgment in light of Pacheco's contention that a genuine issue of material fact existed.
Under Rule 56 a trial justice has the power to enter summary judgment in favor of the movant provided the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradbury v. Network Enters., Inc., Case No. 4:12-CV-575 (CEJ)
...whether an agent has bound himself personally is a question of fact," and should be left for summary judgment. Pacheco v. Mass. Cas. Ins. Co., 610 A.2d 111, 113 (R.I. 1992). 2. Piercing the Corporate Veil Next, plaintiff argues that the Court should hold Finnegan personally liable for Netwo......