Solomon v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 December 1996
• Docket Number: No. 95-407-A,95-407-A
• Citation: 685 A.2d 1073
• Parties: Phillip SOLOMON v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., et al. ppeal.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 1073

685 A.2d 1073

Phillip SOLOMON v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., et al.

No. 95-407-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Dec. 16, 1996.

Joseph Keough, Pawtucket.

Robert Quigley, Jr., Providence.

ORDER

This matter came before the Supreme Court on December 4, 1996, pursuant to an order directing both parties to show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. The plaintiff, Phillip Solomon (plaintiff), has appealed from a Superior Court decision granting a motion to dismiss in favor of Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Thomas and Susan Gomersall (collectively as defendants).

After hearing the arguments of counsel for the parties and after reviewing their memoranda, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown, and therefore, the appeal will be decided at this time.

The pertinent facts are as follows. In April 1991, plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident with the Gomersalls. In a proceeding separate from the instant matter, plaintiff filed suit in Rhode Island Superior Court seeking monetary damages suffered as a result of the accident.

While that suit proceeded, plaintiff filed the present action against the Gomersalls and their insurance company, Progressive Casualty Insurance. The plaintiff alleged five counts in his complaint. The first is that defendants failed to enter mediation in the earlier suit, despite having entered into an agreement to do so with plaintiff. Second, plaintiff alleged that despite a subsequent written agreement to submit the suit to binding arbitration, defendants refused to arbitrate in accordance with the agreement. In the final three counts, plaintiff alleged that defendants engaged in unfair trade practices, violated the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, and caused plaintiff emotional distress as a result of the two previous failures to settle the suit.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, contending that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial justice granted the motion and plaintiff appealed to this court. ¹ We now affirm the holding of the Superior Court.

In passing upon the issue of whether a trial justice has properly granted a motion made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), "this court reviews the allegations contained in the plaintiff's complaint, assumes them to be true, and views them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Ellis v. Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, 586 A.2d 1055, 1057 (R.I.1991). When it appears clear beyond a reasonable doubt that plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts, a motion made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) should be granted. Id.

We are of the opinion that the trial justice properly granted defendants' motion. A review of plaintiff's complaint revealed that in counts 1 and 2 plaintiff, in essence, asserted a breach of contract claim against defendants for failure to mediate or arbitrate the earlier suit. ² Assuming this allegation to be true, plaintiff's only recourse would be to petition the Superior Court for an order to enforce the terms of the arbitration agreement. G.L.1956 § 10-3-4. The plaintiff may not sustain a cause of action for compensatory or punitive damages and has thus failed to state a claim, under any set of circumstances, that would entitle him to the relief sought. Therefore, it was proper for the trial justice to dismiss counts 1 and 2.

In counts 3 and 4, plaintiff alleged that defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, ...