Taft v. Cerwonka
433 A.2d 215, 1981 R.I. LEXIS 1241, 23 A.L.R. 4th 1 (1981)
Rule of Law:
When an insured pays separate premiums for uninsured-motorist coverage for multiple vehicles under a single policy, the insured is entitled to aggregate (stack) the coverage limits for each vehicle. Expert testimony regarding prospective earnings is not indispensable to a jury's determination of damages in a wrongful death action, as such awards are inherently speculative.
Facts:
- In the fall of 1976, Beverly A. Taft, a ninth-grade student, lived at home with her parents, Earl W. Taft and Marian F. Taft, in Warwick.
- On the evening of November 2, 1976, Beverly and her friend Lauren Cesana left the Taft residence to visit friends, which was not within walking distance, and neither girl possessed a driver's license.
- Eric A. Cerwonka, driving a 1965 Buick Skylark owned by his roommate Richard A. Miller, offered Beverly and Lauren a ride, which they accepted.
- Shortly after leaving a neighborhood store, Cerwonka lost control of the vehicle, causing it to leave the road, strike a guy wire, and then a utility pole.
- Beverly, a passenger in the vehicle, died as a result of the injuries she sustained in the collision.
- Cerwonka and Miller were uninsured at the time of the fatal mishap.
- Beverly's parents, the Tafts, held an automobile insurance policy with Allstate Insurance Company that covered two vehicles, for which they paid separate premiums for uninsured-motorist coverage for each.
Procedural Posture:
- Earl W. Taft and Marian F. Taft (plaintiffs) brought a civil action against Eric A. Cerwonka for the alleged wrongful death of their daughter, Beverly A. Taft.
- Plaintiffs also filed a complaint against their insurer, Allstate Insurance Company, under the uninsured-motorist provisions of their policy, as Cerwonka and Miller were uninsured.
- The two suits were consolidated in the Superior Court.
- Prior to trial, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of intra-policy stacking of uninsured-motorist coverage, which a justice of the Superior Court granted.
- Allstate filed a notice of appeal from the partial summary judgment but subsequently withdrew it before the case was docketed.
- The matter then proceeded to trial in the Superior Court.
- After all parties had rested, Allstate moved for a directed verdict, requesting the jury be instructed to return a minimum verdict of $5,000, which the trial justice denied.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs in the sum of $33,000.
- Allstate moved for a new trial on the issue of damages and also moved the court to enter judgment against it in the amount of $10,000 (its contended liability limit).
- The trial justice denied Allstate's motions and entered judgment against Allstate in the amount of $20,000 (the aggregate limits of Allstate’s liability).
- Allstate appealed the denial of these motions and the entry of judgment to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a policyholder who pays separate uninsured-motorist premiums for multiple vehicles under a single insurance policy have the right to aggregate the coverage limits for each vehicle to determine the total available coverage? 2. Is expert testimony indispensable to provide sufficient evidence for a jury to determine pecuniary damages, specifically prospective earnings, in a wrongful death action involving a minor with no earning history?
Opinions:
Majority - Murray, Justice
Yes, a policyholder who pays separate uninsured-motorist premiums for multiple vehicles under a single insurance policy has the right to aggregate the coverage limits for each vehicle. The court found that the "double-premiums theory" and the "reasonable expectations of a policyholder" support intra-policy stacking, especially when separate premiums are paid for each vehicle's coverage. The court reasoned that to deny stacking in such a scenario would defeat the insured's reasonable expectations, as a simple change from two separate policies to one combined policy should not reduce coverage when comparable premiums are paid. The court noted a clear trend in other jurisdictions favoring stacking and distinguished cases where stacking was denied, while also limiting this holding to factually similar cases, deferring decisions on more complex 'fleet' scenarios. Additionally, the court held that expert testimony is not indispensable to provide sufficient evidence for a jury to determine pecuniary damages in a wrongful death action. The court affirmed the trial justice's denial of Allstate's motions for a directed verdict and a new trial. It stated that the ultimate award in wrongful-death actions is based on predictions and is inherently speculative, therefore not requiring precise proof or indispensable expert testimony. The jury was presented with sufficient other evidence (including life tables, personal expenses, and parents' earnings) from which it could make a reasoned conclusion as to prospective earnings and present value. The trial justice properly concluded that reasonable minds could differ on the amount of damages, and the verdict was responsive to the evidence.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent for insurance law in Rhode Island by endorsing the principle of intra-policy stacking for uninsured-motorist coverage when separate premiums are paid. It reinforces the "reasonable expectations" doctrine, suggesting courts will interpret insurance policies in favor of the insured when premiums imply broader coverage. Furthermore, the ruling concerning wrongful death damages provides crucial guidance on evidentiary standards, affirming that juries can determine complex damage awards based on a range of evidence without indispensable expert testimony, acknowledging the speculative nature of such calculations and deferring to the trial court's discretion. This could make it easier for plaintiffs to prove damages in wrongful death cases, particularly those involving minors, without the potentially prohibitive cost of economic experts.
