 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Asermely v. Allstate Insurance Company5/5/1999
74 A.2d 1223, 1225 (R.I. 1996).
In respect to count 1, in order to prove a violation of § 27-7-2.2, plaintiff must show that she made "a written offer to the defendant's insurer to settle the action in an amount equal to or less than the coverage limits on the liability policy in force at the time the action accrues. * * * " Section 27-7-2.2. After examining the evidence, the trial Justice found that plaintiff's counsel wrote a letter to the court-annexed arbitration administrator on September 20, 1989, stating that "Plaintiff will accept the award of the arbitrator" and that a copy of this letter was forwarded to defendant. The trial Justice concluded, however, that this letter did not satisfy the requirements of § 27-7-2.2 because he found that " he words used `will accept the award of the arbitrator,' without more, were so ambiguous that it cannot be said as a matter of law to be definite in its terms to constitute an offer." In finding that the wording of the letter was not sufficiently definite, the trial Justice noted that plaintiff's counsel testified that his meaning, "when he offered the letter, was to include both the award plus the interest."
We hold that the trial Justice erred in granting summary judgment on count 1 because there existed a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff's letter constituted a written offer to settle within the policy limits as required by § 27-7-2.2. Accordingly, we vacate the summary judgment on count 1 and remand for trial on the issue of whether plaintiff met the statutory requirements of § 27-7-2.2 by making a written offer to defendant to settle within the policy limits.
Count 3 of plaintiff's amended complaint alleged that defendant made fraudulent misrepresentations "with the intention of deceiving and inducing the Plaintiff to sign said settlement check * * *." In order for fraudulent misrepresentation or deceit to be found, the complaining party must show not only that the defendant had an intention to deceive, but the complainant also must present sufficient proof that the party detrimentally relied upon the fraudulent representation. Guglielmi v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust Financial Corp., 573 A.2d 687, 690 (R.I. 1990); LaFazia v. Howe, 575 A.2d 182, 185 (R.I. 1990). Here, plaintiff neither alleged nor presented any evidence of detrimental reliance. Rather, the evidence suggests no detrimental reliance, given that plaintiff did not negotiate the first check issued by defendant. We hold, therefore, that the trial Justice correctly granted summary judgment for defendant on count 3 of plaintiff's complaint.
Count 4 alleged that defendant disregarded its duty to its insured in bad faith. It is well settled that " here cannot be a showing of bad faith when the insurer is able to demonstrate a reasonable basis for denying benefits." Rumford Property and Liability v. Carbone, 590 A.2d 398, 400 (R.I. 1991). If the claim is `"fairly debatable,'" there can be no liability in tort. Id. (quoting Bibeault v. Hanover Insurance Co., 417 A.2d 313, 319 (R.I. 1980)).
Here, the matter was clearly debatable. The arbitrator found plaintiff 25 percent responsible, and the jury found plaintiff 60 percent responsible. As a matter of law, this issue was debatable. Consequently, the trial Justice had sufficient evidence before him to decide that a fairly debatable claim existed and that summary judgment was appropriate. See Pressman v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 574 A.2d 757, 760 (R.I. 1990) (affirming grant of summary judgment on bad faith claim on ground that claim was fairly debatable).
We shall take this opportunity to promulgate a new rule to guide the trial courts in deciding these issues. Th
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.
|
|