Rhode Island High Court vacates ruling for Allstate, ordering stalled property appraisal after nearly a decade

The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated and remanded a state Superior Court ruling, determining property owner Raymond C. Romeo had properly demanded an appraisal within the time limit provided in his policy with Allstate.

In a May 3 opinion, Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg concluded Raymond C. Romeo’s demand for appraisal wasn’t time barred, and a lower court’s ruling in 2012 had been made with the understanding that an appraisal of Romeo’s property would occur, despite Allstate’s objects years after it agreed to participate in the evaluation.

Romeo appealed from the Superior Court’s judgment granting summary judgment to Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company. The most recent ruling follows years of litigation between the two, and stems from his attempts to make a claim for loss under his policy with Allstate for “a water loss followed by ice and flood.”

The parties have been unable to agree as to the extent of the loss and the cost of remediation in regards to the damage of Romeo’s home over a decade ago. Thus, in 2012, a trial court granted summary judgment without favor to Allstate, as both parties were in agreement that the insurance coverage dispute should be resolved by way of the appraisal process.

But that appraisal never occurred.

In 2017, Romeo designated an appraiser and requested Allstate do the same. Allstate refused, saying Romeo’s demand hadn’t been timely filed, claiming the two-year limitation period within the policy had passed in 2012, which expired prior to the parties agreement to resolve the issue through appraisal.

The back and forth between the two parties lead Romeo to commence an instant action in 2017, setting forth five counts.

The trial justice granted Allstate’s motion for summary judgment in regard to Romeo alleging Allstate breached the insurance contract by refusing to designate an appraiser and proceed to appraisal, to declare that Allstate was obligated to resolve the dispute via appraisal and to order it to comply with the obligation, and for breach of contract in regards to Allstate’s refusal to pay for the loss and for failing to proceed to appraisal.

The trial justice denied Romeo’s motion to do the same, which lead to the parties once more filing cross-motions for summary judgment, though this time to count one of the complaints, where Romeo asked the court to vacate the judgment entered in the initial action between the parties, years prior.

Additionally, Romeo’s request to vacate the judgment in the first action was denied, with the justice asserting that he hadn’t filed a motion for reconsideration or a motion to correct, and the judgment wasn’t void, nor was there evidence of “inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or fraud.”

Allstate’s motion of summary judgment as to count one was granted by the justice, as was its motion to dismiss count 5 of Romeo’s, the severed, and stayed, insurer bad-faith count. Allstate’s motion to dismiss was granted and judgment was entered in favor of Allstate.

Romeo appeals the Superior Court’s granting of summary judgment to Allstate, contending the court erred in concluding the present case was time barred, asserting that “he demanded appraisal well within the two-year limitation set forth in the policy,” as he had demanded an appraisal nearly immediately after the loss, before he had initiated the first action in 2011.

Thus, Romeo contended Allstate’s refusal to proceed to appraisal following his naming of an appraiser in 2017 was improper, and that justice requires the judgment to be vacated, with the matter proceeding to appraisal. The Rhode Island Supreme Court agreed.

According to Goldberg, Allstate’s reliance on cases like Chase v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Machado v. Narragansett Bay Insurance Company, were misplaced as, unlike the cited cases, Romeo had made a timely demand for appraisal, prior to his 2017 demand.

In 2010 Romeo demanded an appraisal, which Allstate refused, “arguing that portions of the plaintiff’s alleged loss were not covered by the policy.”

This refusal led Romeo to instigate suit in 2011, with both the demand for appraisal and the filing of suit being brought within the two-year limitation. Thus, Goldberg determined that neither were time-barred.

Goldberg also noted Allstate’s urging of the trial court to grant its motion for summary judgment “based on its contention that plaintiff’s claim was required to be resolved by way of appraisal and not litigation,” in the first action. Romeo agreed that appraisal was the appropriate resolution, and at the conclusion of the action “there was a clear understanding that the appraisal process would be, or already was, ongoing.”

Of further importance, Goldberg noted, was the trial justice telling Romeo that he could press his case at a later date, if the appraisal process didn’t allow him to address the issues.

“Notably, the trial justice granted Allstate’s motion for summary judgment ‘without prejudice’ —for which we are hard-pressed to discern its meaning and note that there is no precedent in this jurisdiction for such a designation,” the court said. “Even more significantly, Allstate had filed a counterclaim in the initial action seeking an order from the trial justice declaring that the parties were required to submit the matter to appraisal. Thus, Allstate’s assertion, in both its motion for summary judgment and its counterclaim, that appraisal was required, amounts to a binding judicial admission.”

“Because we conclude that the plaintiff’s initial demand for appraisal was not time-barred and because Allstate’s motion for summary judgment in the first action was granted ‘without prejudice’ and with the clear understanding that the claim would undergo appraisal, we conclude that the court erred in granting Allstate’s motion for summary judgment in the present case,” concluded the court, vacating the judgment and remanding the case back to the Superior Court with the instructions to vacate the judgment in the first action, and to order the parties to proceed to appraisal.

Allstate’s attorney, Peter A. Clarkin, McKenney of Clarkin & Estey in Providence, declined to comment.

Romeo’s attorney, Peter J. Comerford of Coia & Lepore in Providence, did not respond to a call for comment.

Related:

• Are PTSD damages recoverable in an underinsured motorist claim?
• Litigation funding blamed for spiking insurance settlements – but is that really true?
• No free lunches: Recovering defense costs in Massachusetts