Opinion ID: 2077050
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Travelers Policy

Text: Travelers also contends that, even if this Court determines that plaintiff is entitled to an additional recovery from Norfolk, the portion of the award concerning Travelers' liability to the Cataldos must not be disturbed. Travelers reasons that plaintiff has not sought, and may not seek, to enforce any rights the Cataldos may have under the Travelers policy. Although it is true that plaintiff is not an insured under the Cataldos' policy with Travelers, we find no merit in the argument that plaintiff may not challenge the arbitrator's award in its entirety. Our grant of a writ of certiorari has brought the enforcement of the arbitrator's entire award under review, and the arbitrator's decision ought to be considered in light of the total economic consequences of that decision. The money awarded to the Cataldos has a direct bearing on the amount of money available to plaintiff. Mr. Buttie has clearly alleged that the arbitrator's apportionment of liability between Norfolk and Travelers caused him injury in fact, the gravamen of standing. See Bowen v. Mollis, 945 A.2d 314, 317 (R.I.2008). Further, it is our opinion that the arbitrator's irrationality in distributing the Norfolk policy infected the entire award. We conclude, therefore, that the portion of the arbitrator's award concerning the Cataldos' recovery under the Travelers policy is also properly under review. The Cataldos argue that if we determine Mr. Buttie is entitled to additional sums from the Norfolk policy, the portion of the award involving Travelers' liability to the Cataldos also must be altered as the rights of the parties and the ends of justice require. Section 10-3-19. As to the $100,000 in coverage that is available only to the Cataldos, the arbitrator determined that Travelers should pay 25 percent of both Raymond and Joan's damages. In other words, Raymond Cataldo, who sustained $93,272 in damages, would be entitled to $23,318 from Travelers (or 25 percent of $93,272). Likewise, Joan Cataldo would receive $20,037 from Travelers (or approximately 25 percent of $80,146). We find that the arbitrator's conclusion in this regard leads to a plainly unjust result. After receiving the proper portion of the coverage available under the Norfolk policy, the uncompensated portion of the Cataldos' combined claims totals $92,418. [3] The Cataldos, however, would receive a total of only $43,354.50 of their $100,000 policy limits if we were to uphold the arbitrator's decision. This would result in a $49,063.50 windfall for Travelers ($92,418 minus $43,354.50), while the Cataldos would be uncompensated for the majority of their injuries. Further, there is nothing in the other insurance clauses, upon which the arbitrator relied, to suggest that Travelers should not be liable for the full amount of their insureds' damages. The clauses state that if there is other applicable similar insurance (in this case the Norfolk policy), each insurance company will pay only their share of the loss, which is the proportion that their limit of liability bears to the total of all applicable limits (in Travelers' case, 25%). This language obviously contemplates a situation in which the relevant party or parties are covered by two policies. This case, however, is complicated by the fact that only the Cataldos are covered by both policiesMr. Buttie was covered by the Norfolk policy only. If all of the relevant parties had been covered by both policies, the arbitrator's basic premise of a pro rata distribution would have been just. However, under the facts of this case, the arbitrator's determination creates an inequitable result and a windfall for Travelers because Travelers did not provide coverage to Mr. Buttie. Additionally, the other insurance clauses go on to state that any insurance provided with respect to a vehicle not owned by the insured shall be excess over any other collectable insurance. (Emphasis added.) Because the Cataldos cannot collect the full amount of their damages from Norfolk, they are entitled to recover the remainder of their damages from their own insurance company. A windfall for Travelers would be unjust because the Cataldos paid premiums for $100,000 of UM coverage with the expectation that they would be compensated to the extent of their damages within or up to the policy limits if they were injured by an underinsured motorist. Given that the Cataldos' uncompensated damages do not exceed their available coverage, it is in the interests of justice that the Cataldos be able to recover the full amount of their damages. Raymond Cataldo, who sustained $93,272 in damages, but who should be paid only $45,000 under the Norfolk policy, is entitled to the remainder of his damages under the Travelers policy, or $48,272. Joan Cataldo, who sustained $80,146 in damages, but who is to be paid only $36,000 under the Norfolk policy, is entitled to the remainder of her damages under the Travelers' policy: $44,146. As we have vacated the arbitrator's award, § 10-3-19 clearly provides that we shall make such orders    as the rights of the parties and the ends of justice require. Accordingly, we direct the Superior Court to enter an order consistent herewith.