Opinion ID: 2085108
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Precedents at Issue

Text: The plaintiffs contend that, in view of this Court's holdings in both Hindson v. Allstate Insurance Co., 694 A.2d 682 (R.I. 1997), and Ferreira v. Mello, 811 A.2d 1175 (R.I., 2002), the hearing justice erred in interpreting the pertinent insurance policy provisions. Since the Hindson and Ferreira cases are at the center of the dispute in the instant case, we shall briefly summarize them before proceeding further. In Hindson, 694 A.2d at 683, the injured party sought underinsured motorist coverage from two carriers  his own personal insurance carrier (Allstate) and the carrier that insured the vehicle in which he was riding (Penn General). The Allstate policy provided that its coverage was excess if the insured was injured while in a vehicle which was insured under another policy. The Penn General policy provided that, if other similar insurance was available, Penn General would pay only its proportionate share of the loss. This Court held that pro rata coverage would constitute the proper manner in which to resolve this type of conflicting other-insurance clause dispute. Id. at 685. In Ferreira, 811 A.2d at 1177-78, this Court determined that two different other-insurance clauses were not actually in conflict with each other and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resort to a pro rata approach. In that case, the plaintiff was injured in a collision with a vehicle operated by one defendant and owned by another defendant. The language in both defendants' policies was essentially the same, and each provided that the vehicle owner's carrier was the primary insurer and that coverage for a non-owned vehicle was excess insurance. Id. This Court held that where the respective clauses are in agreement there is no reason to deviate from the terms of the policies   . Id. at 1177. Because the policies at issue were in harmony, the pro rata approach articulated in Hindson did not apply.