Background
Cynthia Roberge was injured in an October 2018 collision with an underinsured driver while acting within the scope of her employment for the State of Rhode Island. Because no State vehicle was available, she was driving her personal car. Travelers insured the State under a policy that limited uninsured/underinsured-motorist coverage to persons occupying a covered auto or temporary substitute.
Travelers denied Roberge’s claim because her personal vehicle was not a covered auto and she was not an insured under the policy’s terms. Roberge sued for breach of contract, declaratory relief, punitive damages, and bad faith. After the district court granted summary judgment to Travelers, the First Circuit certified two questions to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which held that Roberge was neither a named insured nor entitled to statutorily mandated UM/UIM coverage under these circumstances.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Travelers on all counts. Applying the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s answers, the court held that the policy’s clear language controlled: an employee driving her personal vehicle within the scope of employment did not thereby become a named insured, and Rhode Island’s uninsured-motorist statute did not require coverage because the policy did not provide primary coverage for that vehicle.
The court rejected Roberge’s argument that Travelers waived its coverage defense. Travelers’ three denial communications identified the relevant policy provisions and consistently explained that Roberge was excluded because she was driving her own vehicle. Rhode Island law did not require Travelers to anticipate and answer every later statutory theory she might assert.
The court also rejected Roberge’s arguments that the policy required reformation because the State had not signed a rejection of broader coverage and that Travelers failed to provide required notices when the policy was renewed or modified. A signed rejection was unnecessary for coverage that Rhode Island law did not mandate, and Roberge cited no record evidence establishing a violation of the statutory or regulatory notice requirements.
Key Takeaways
- An employee acting within the scope of employment does not automatically become a named insured under an employer’s automobile policy when the policy language limits coverage based on the vehicle involved.
- An insurer does not waive its coverage position when its denial identifies the controlling policy provisions and factual basis, even if it does not anticipate every later statutory argument.
- Unsupported assertions that an insurer failed to provide required coverage notices cannot defeat summary judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that, under Rhode Island law, the uninsured-motorist statute protects persons who qualify as insureds under the applicable policy but does not override clear vehicle-based coverage restrictions to create insured status. It also illustrates the practical effect of state-law certification: once Rhode Island’s highest court resolved the controlling questions, the First Circuit applied those answers despite Roberge’s alternative theories.