Cynthia A. Roberge v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America

Syllabus

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit certified two questions to this Court regarding Rhode Island uninsured motorist insurance. The first question was whether, in light of Martinelli v. Travelers Insurance Companies, 687 A.2d 443 (R.I. 1996), a Rhode Island state employee operating her personal vehicle while injured in the scope of her employment was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under the state's auto insurance policy despite contrary policy language. The second question was whether it was a violation of the Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute, G.L. 1956 § 27-7-2.1, or public policy when the defendant-insurer provided liability coverage to employees in the scope of their employment, but not uninsured motorist coverage based upon the auto involved. The Supreme Court concluded that neither Martinelli nor Rhode Island law require that plaintiff be considered the \named insured\ under the policy issued to the state merely because she was acting within the scope of her employment at the time of her injury. It was undisputed that the state's auto insurance policy did not extend uninsured motorist coverage to Roberge, and Rhode Island law did not supplant policy language that restricted such coverage. Furthermore, the policy did not violate § 27-7-2.1 or public policy when it provided plaintiff liability coverage but not uninsured motorist coverage because the statute does not mandate an extension of uninsured motorist coverage to a class of person that conflicts the contractual policy language. Accordingly, the Supreme Court answered both certified questions in the negative.