Opinion ID: 2422592
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Beacon Policy

Text: We now consider the sole issue before this Court: whether under the policy language Beacon must pay Spino Bros. for its indemnification of DePasquale. It is well established that this [C]ourt applies the rules for construction of contracts when interpreting an insurance policy and that we shall not depart from the literal language of the policy absent a finding that the policy is ambiguous. Lynch v. Spirit Rent-A-Car, Inc., 965 A.2d 417, 425 (R.I.2009) (quoting Mallane v. Holyoke Mutual Insurance Co. in Salem, 658 A.2d 18, 20 (R.I.1995)). In making our determination as to whether it is ambiguous we read the policy in its entirety, giving words their plain, ordinary, and usual meaning[.] Id. We refrain from engaging in mental gymnastics or from stretching the imagination to read ambiguity into a policy where none is present. Id. Part Two of the policy entitled Employers' Liability Insurance is divided into eight subsections; the exclusions portion specifically declares that the policy does not cover liability assumed under a contract. This provision is unambiguous. After reading the policy as a whole and according the language its ordinary meaning, it is clear to us that Beacon's responsibility under the insurance contract does not include liability arising from a contract between its insured and a third party. Thus, because Spino Bros.' liability to DePasquale exclusively stemmed from the contract executed between them ( Rodrigues, 926 A.2d at 624), and coverage for that eventuality specifically is excluded from the insurance policy, Beacon was entitled to a declaration to that effect. Accordingly, we affirm the trial justice's grant of summary judgment in favor of Beacon.