Background
Cynthia Roberge was seriously injured in a collision with an underinsured motorist while acting within the scope of her employment for the State of Rhode Island. She was driving her own vehicle because all state vehicles were in use. Travelers insured the State under a commercial auto policy that provided liability coverage to employees using non-owned vehicles for state business but limited uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage to state-owned vehicles and qualifying temporary substitutes.
Travelers denied Roberge’s claim for UM/UIM benefits because her personal vehicle was not a covered auto and she therefore was not an insured for that coverage under the policy’s terms. Roberge sued, arguing that Rhode Island precedent and the state’s uninsured-motorist statute required coverage despite the policy language. The district court granted summary judgment to Travelers on all claims and denied Roberge’s cross-motion on her contract and declaratory-judgment claims.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit agreed that the policy’s plain language did not provide Roberge UM/UIM coverage. It did not, however, decide whether Rhode Island law overrides that language. Finding no controlling state precedent and concluding that the answers could determine the appeal, the court certified two questions to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
The first asks whether, under Martinelli v. Travelers Insurance Companies and Rhode Island law, an employee driving her personal vehicle within the scope of employment must be treated as a named insured despite contrary policy language. The second asks whether Rhode Island’s uninsured-motorist statute and public policy permit a policy to cover employees for liability while they act within the scope of employment but deny them UM/UIM coverage based on the vehicle involved. The First Circuit retained jurisdiction and stayed the case pending the state court’s response.
Key Takeaways
- The First Circuit did not hold that Roberge was entitled to UM/UIM benefits or affirm the judgment for Travelers on the merits.
- Under the policy language alone, Roberge was covered for liability while using her personal vehicle for state business but was not insured for UM/UIM coverage in that vehicle.
- The certified questions concern both the possible scope-of-employment exception suggested by Martinelli and whether differing liability and UM/UIM coverage classes violate Rhode Island law or public policy.
Why It Matters
The Rhode Island Supreme Court’s answers may clarify when employees qualify as named insureds under employer auto policies and whether UM/UIM coverage must correspond to liability coverage for employees acting within the scope of employment.
The decision could affect the drafting and enforcement of commercial auto policies throughout Rhode Island, particularly policies that condition UM/UIM protection on ownership or use of a covered vehicle.