 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hardguittini v. City of Providence12/17/2003
This case involves an uninsured motorist (UIM) claim arising out of an automobile accident. The insured plaintiffs, Esther Hardguittini (Esther) and Herwin Hardguittini (Herwin), failed to provide their UIM insurer, the defendant, Peerless Insurance Company (Peerless), with information showing that the alleged tortfeasor was an uninsured motorist or a hit-and-run driver. Consequently, Peerless denied their claim seeking UIM benefits. After the Superior Court granted summary judgment for Peerless and dismissed the complaint, the plaintiffs appealed to this Court. We affirm on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the alleged tortfeasor was an uninsured, underinsured, or a hit-and-run driver.
On September 12, 1997, Herwin was involved in a motor vehicle accident with another car near the intersection of Cranston Street and Hanover Street in Providence. At the time, he was operating a vehicle that Esther owned and Peerless insured. According to plaintiffs, the driver of the other vehicle negligently caused the collision. The police responded to the scene, but, according to plaintiffs, the police lost or misplaced the accident report that the investigating officer prepared after gathering all the relevant information at the scene. Without the report, plaintiffs maintained that they were unable to identify the individual who allegedly was responsible for causing the accident: namely, the operator of the other motor vehicle. Consequently, Peerless denied plaintiffs' claim for uninsured motorist benefits under the policy because there was no evidence that the owner or operator of the other motor vehicle involved in the accident was uninsured or underinsured, much less that the accident involved a hit-and-run collision.
The plaintiffs filed suit against the City of Providence (city) for negligently misplacing the report, and against Peerless for wrongful denial of their UIM claim and for bad faith refusal to pay the same. Peerless moved for summary judgment, which the court granted, and plaintiffs now appeal from the judgment that the Superior Court entered pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs' claims against the city are still pending and are not before us on this appeal.
On appeal, plaintiffs argue that Peerless wrongfully dishonored their claim for UIM benefits. They contend that by remaining at the scene and by giving all pertinent information to the investigating police officer, Herwin did everything he was required to do after the accident. The plaintiffs suggest that, through no fault of their own, they are now in the same position as if they had been involved in a hit-and-run collision in which the driver of the other vehicle cannot be identified -- a situation that is expressly covered by the UIM provisions of their liability policy with Peerless.
Peerless argues that plaintiffs failed to present it with sufficient information for it to ascertain whether the owner or the driver of the other vehicle was uninsured or underinsured. In any event, Peerless contends this was not a hit-and-run accident. It suggests that, at the time of the accident, Herwin failed to ascertain the make, model, and registration number of the other vehicle, and that he did not obtain the identity of the other driver -- information that Peerless needed to determine whether the alleged tortfeasor or the vehicle's owner were insured to any extent. Peerless insists that it should not be obliged to pay for the neglect either of its insureds or of the police department in obtaining and retaining basic information about the other driver and his vehicle.
In ruling in favor of Peerless, the motion justice concluded t
Page 1 2 3 Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|