Stevens v. Gulf Oil Corp.

• Decision Date: 23 February 1971
• Docket Number: No. 1163-A,1163-A
• Citation: 108 R.I. 209,274 A.2d 163
• Parties: Frederick STEVENS v. GULF OIL CORPORATION. ppeal.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 163

274 A.2d 163

108 R.I. 209

Frederick STEVENS v. GULF OIL CORPORATION.

No. 1163-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Feb. 23, 1971.

[108 R.I. 213] John J. Vallone, Jr., Louis J. Vallone, Providence, for plaintiff.

Keenan, Rice, Dolan & Reardon, John T. Keenan, Providence, for defendant.

OPINION

KELLEHER, Justice.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court order denying and dismissing the defendant's motion asking that a default judgment entered against it be set aside.

Gulf Oil Corporation owns a new modern gasoline station facility located in Providence near LaSalle Square. The front of the building consists of 22 plate glass panels framed in metal. Each panel measures ten feet in height and three feet in width. In early November 1969 plaintiff was injured when he walked through one of the glass panels. He was a passenger in an automobile that had stopped at the station for gas. He started this suit on February 6, 1970. A copy of the summons and complaint was served upon Gulf's attorney for service of process on February 9, 1970. The suit papers were immediately forwarded to Gulf's New York office and on February 10, 1970, the documents were sent to the Providence office of The Travelers Insurance Company. There, the documents were misfiled. On April 3, 1970, a default judgment was entered. Sometime in June 1970, the claims supervisor of Travelers came across the misplaced documents. Gulf's motion to remove the default was filed on June 19, 1970. It is based upon Super.R.Civ.P. 60(b) which, in addition to other grounds, authorizes relief from the operation of a judgment because of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect of for any other reason justifying relief.

A motion to vacate a default judgment is addressed to the trial justice's sound judicial discretion and his ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion or an error of law. Bloom v. Trudeau, R.I. 266 A.2d 417; Fiske v. Marino, 100 R.I. 758, 219 A.2d 471.

Accompanying Gulf's motion were the affidavits of the claims supervisor and an adjuster who was assigned to investigate Stevens' claim. The supervisor stated that the documents were received by Travelers on February 12, 1970 and instead of being attached to the Stevens-Gulf file, it was attached to another file. He said that 'I do not know how this came about.' According to this official, if legal process was received and the day for answering was imminent, he would refer the matter to counsel or obtain from the claimant's attorney a stipulation extending the time for answering the suit.

The adjuster's affidavit sheds no light as to what caused the misfiling of the suit papers. Nowhere in either affidavit is there any averment that Travelers had been in contract with either Stevens or his attorney, even though the adjuster said that the file had been in his possession since November 1969 except for such time as he returned it to his supervisor for a review.

We believe that the misfiling of the summons and complaint was negligence on the insurer's part. The issues before us are two: (1) Was the negligence excused and if not (2) is Travelers' negligence imputable to Gulf?

We have ruled that unexplained neglect, standing without more, will not ipso facto excuse noncompliance with the orderly procedures. Bloom v. Trudeau, supra; Fields v. S. & M. Foods, Inc., 105 R.I. 161, 249 A.2d 892. Whether a default judgment is the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect or 'other reason justifying relief' is a question of fact to be proved by evidence. Willette v. Umhoeffer, Me., 245 A.2d 540. Here in the record before us there is complete absence of any asserted fact by the insurer to explain its failure to answer Stevens' complaint. The defendant has failed to show an excuse...