Background
Cynthia Roberge was employed by the State of Rhode Island and used her personal vehicle for work-related travel when state vehicles were unavailable. On October 18, 2018, while driving her personal car, she was struck by an underinsured motorist and sustained serious injuries. She filed a claim for uninsured motorist (UM) and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage under the state’s auto insurance policy with Travelers.
The state’s Travelers policy provided liability coverage for “any auto” but limited UM/UIM coverage to only “owned autos”—meaning state-owned vehicles. Travelers denied Roberge’s UM/UIM claim because she was operating her personal vehicle, not a state asset. Roberge argued she should be treated as a “named insured” under the policy based on a statement in Martinelli v. Travelers (1996) that suggested shareholders or employees injured within the scope of employment might qualify for such coverage.
After the federal district court granted summary judgment for Travelers, the First Circuit certified two questions to the Rhode Island Supreme Court: (1) whether an employee operating a personal vehicle in the scope of employment must be considered a named insured under her employer’s policy despite contrary policy language, and (2) whether the policy’s differential coverage violates Rhode Island’s Uninsured Motorist Statute.
The Court’s Holding
The Rhode Island Supreme Court answered both questions in the negative. On the first issue, the court held that Roberge was not entitled to UM/UIM coverage. Although Martinelli had left open the theoretical possibility that shareholders or employees injured within the scope of employment might receive coverage, the court emphasized that this exception had never been fully developed or applied. The Martinelli court itself had not decided the issue because the plaintiff was acting outside the scope of employment, and subsequent cases (like Medeiros) had involved facts outside employment scope as well.
The court declined to recognize a Martinelli exception for Roberge for several reasons. First, unlike Martinelli, which involved a principal shareholder of a small, closely-held business, Roberge worked for a large state government employer with approximately 17,000 employees. Second, the policy language was unambiguous in identifying only the State as the named insured and in defining “covered autos” as state-owned vehicles. Third, extending coverage to Roberge would logically require coverage for any state employee injured during work, which would fundamentally contradict the negotiated policy terms between the state and Travelers.
On the second question, the court held that the Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute (§27-7-2.1) does not mandate UM/UIM coverage in these circumstances. The statute requires coverage only for persons “insured under the policy” when the policy provides “primary coverage” for the motor vehicle involved. Since Roberge’s personal vehicle was covered by her own USAA auto insurance policy—which included UM/UIM benefits of $100,000—not by the state’s Travelers policy, Travelers was not the primary insurer and therefore had no duty to extend coverage under state law.
Key Takeaways
- Clear, unambiguous insurance policy language limiting UM/UIM coverage to specified vehicles will be enforced as written, even when an employee is injured during the scope of employment.
- The Martinelli exception—allowing potential coverage for shareholders or employees injured within employment scope—remains narrow, underdeveloped, and applies only in situations involving small, closely-held businesses, not large employers.
- The Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute mandates UM/UIM coverage only for vehicles for which the policy provides primary coverage; if an employee’s personal vehicle is covered by their own policy, the employer’s insurer bears no obligation.
- Employees who use personal vehicles for work should maintain their own comprehensive auto insurance, as employer policies may validly exclude such vehicles from UM/UIM protection.
Why It Matters
This decision provides crucial clarity on a previously unsettled area of Rhode Island insurance law. By definitively narrowing the Martinelli exception and enforcing clear policy language, the court has affirmed that insurers and employers can structure coverage limits based on vehicle type, and that such provisions will withstand scrutiny even when injuries occur within the employment context. The ruling protects insurers from indefinite exposure and confirms that policy language controls over equitable principles in the uninsured motorist context.
For employees and injured parties, the decision underscores a critical practical point: employer-provided auto insurance may not cover accidents involving personal vehicles, regardless of whether the employee was conducting work-related business. Individuals should ensure their own auto insurance policies provide adequate UM/UIM coverage rather than relying on employer policies, which may contain vehicle-specific limitations. The decision also illustrates the continuing tension between strict contractual interpretation and the public policy favoring broad UM/UIM coverage that Rhode Island has historically endorsed.