Opinion ID: 2085108
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Granting of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

Text: In December of 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment that was based upon this Court's holding in Ferreira v. Mello, 811 A.2d 1175 (R.I.2002). The defendant Travelers thereafter filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, and both motions were heard on March 4, 2008. At the summary judgment hearing, the hearing justice found that the language of the Travelers policy was clear and unambiguous; she stated in pertinent part as follows: Travelers agreed to stand as primary only if the insured, Emblem, had already agreed in a written contract that this Travelers insurance would apply on a primary or contributory basis. Because there is no evidence that Irene and Empire did, in fact, come to such an agreement, the coverage Travelers affords is necessarily excess, not primary. The Travelers policy language is plain. The hearing justice found that the insurance policies did not conflict with each other. The hearing justice also noted that the August 2004 letter agreement between Irene Realty and Emblem & Badge did not contain the words `primary' or `contributory' and, on its face, did not prohibit Emblem from providing excess coverage for Irene. The hearing justice also pointed out that plaintiffs had not come forward with any admissible evidence to demonstrate a genuine dispute over whether the parties intended any different result. The hearing justice denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross-motion. Judgment was entered on March 31, 2008; the court declared that the [c]overage provided by Defendant Travelers' Insurance policy, and its endorsements, issued by Travelers to Emblem & Badge, is excess to the coverage provided by the American Empire policy, which is primary. The plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, plaintiffs argue (1) that the hearing justice erred in deciding that American Empire is Irene Realty's sole primary insurer and (2) that, if the hearing justice did commit reversible error, then she should have held that Travelers and American Empire shared primary coverage or, in the alternative, should have held that Travelers was the sole primary insurer.