Opinion ID: 2823200
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: This Court examines an appeal from cross-motions for summary judgment de novo. Quest Diagnostics, LLC v. Pinnacle Consortium of Higher Education, 93 A.3d 949, 951 (R.I. 2014). “In reviewing the Superior Court’s judgment on the parties’ motions for summary judgment, we    apply the same standards as those used by the trial court.” Id. (quoting Peloquin v. Haven Health Center of Greenville, LLC, 61 A.3d 419, 424 (R.I. 2013)). “Thus, [s]ummary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the [C]ourt determines that there are no issues of material fact in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (quoting Peloquin, 61 A.3d at 424-25). “An insurance policy is contractual in nature[.]” Derderian v. Essex Insurance Co., 44 A.3d 122, 127 (R.I. 2012) (quoting Papudesu v. Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association of Rhode Island, 18 A.3d 495, 498 (R.I. 2011)). Accordingly, when interpreting the disputed terms of an insurance policy, we must do so in accordance with the rules of construction that govern contracts. Nunez v. Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 88 A.3d 1146, 1149 (R.I. 2014). “It is well-settled that this Court shall not depart from the literal language of the policy absent a finding that the policy is ambiguous.” Id. (quoting Koziol v. Peerless Insurance Co., 41
In order to determine whether the terms of a policy are ambiguous, “we give words their plain, ordinary, and usual meaning.” Derderian, 44 A.3d at 128 (quoting Bliss Mine Road Condominium Association v. Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 11 A.3d 1078, 1083 (R.I. 2010)). “The Court considers the policy in its entirety and does not establish -6- ambiguity by viewing a word in isolation or by taking a phrase out of context.” Id. (quoting Bliss Mine Road Condominium Association, 11 A.3d at 1083). When a policy term is found to be ambiguous, this Court has clearly established that “the policy will be strictly construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer.” Id. at 127 (quoting Sjogren v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 703 A.2d 608, 610 (R.I. 1997)). “Indeed, as this Court often has said, we shall ‘refrain from engaging in mental gymnastics or from stretching the imagination to read ambiguity into a policy where none is present.’” Koziol, 41 A.3d at 651 (quoting Bliss Mine Road Condominium Association, 11 A.3d at 1083). III