Court Opinion

ID: 2964710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:29:58.53085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:44.694469
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________
        No. 96-1820

                                 CASCO INDEMNITY CO.,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                    RHODE ISLAND INTERLOCAL RISK MANAGEMENT TRUST,

                                Defendants, Appellees.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                  Cyr, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Alice Olsen Mann with whom David E. Maglio and Morrison, Mahoney
            ________________           _______________     _________________
        & Miller were on brief for appellant.
        ________
            Rosemary Healey with whom James M. Green, Andrew M. Elmore and
            _______________           ______________  ________________
        Powers, Kinder & Keeney, Inc. were on brief for appellee, Rhode Island
        _____________________________
        Interlocal Risk Management Trust.

                                 ____________________

                                     May 12, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      CAMPBELL,   Senior  Circuit   Judge.     This  case
                                  _______________________

            primarily concerns a dispute between two insurance companies,

            Casco Indemnity Company ("Casco") and Rhode Island Interlocal

            Risk Management Trust  ("the Trust"), over  which of them  is

            responsible  for  compensating  one Victor  Cipriano  for the

            injuries  he  sustained in  an  automobile  accident with  an

            uninsured  driver.  Because we  agree with the district court

            that Exclusion 9 in the  Trust's policy applies to  uninsured

            motorist insurance  and is not contrary to public policy, see
                                                                      ___

            Casco Indem. Co. v. Rhode Island  Interlocal Risk Mgt. Trust,
            ________________    ________________________________________

            929 F. Supp. 65  (D.R.I. 1996), we affirm on  these questions

            without further comment.   See  In re San  Juan Dupont  Plaza
                                       ___  _____________________________

            Hotel Fire Litig., 989  F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir.  1993) ("Where,
            _________________

            as  here,  a  trial  court has  produced  a  first-rate  work

            product,  a  reviewing   tribunal  should  hesitate  to   wax

            longiloquence [sic] simply to hear its own words resonate.").

                      We  find it  was error,  however, for  the district

            court  not   to  issue  a  declaratory   judgment,  as  Casco

            requested, concerning  Casco's ability to deduct any workers'

            compensation benefits received by  Cipriano already or in the

            future from his damages.1  

                                
            ____________________

            1.  The district court's sole apparent reference to the issue
            in its opinion was its statement, "With regard to the Casco
            Policy, any coverage available to Cipriano is to be governed
            by the terms of the agreement between the parties."  Casco,
                                                                 _____
            929 F. Supp. at 73.

                                         -2-
                                          2

                      Casco contended below, and now  contends on appeal,

            that  such benefits are excluded by a provision in its policy

            stating:

            B.   Any amounts  otherwise payable  for  damages under  this
                 coverage shall be reduced by all sums . . . 

                 2.   Paid or payable because of the "bodily injury"
                      under any of the following or similar law:

                      a.   workers' compensation law; or

                      b.   disability benefits law.

                      Casco  asserts that  this  provision comports  with

            Rhode Island's public policy against double recovery,  citing

            Poulos v.  Aetna Cas.  & Sur.  Co., 379  A.2d 362,  365 (R.I.
            ______     _______________________

            1977)  (upholding  an  insurance policy  clause  reducing the

            insurer's liability by the amount paid or payable "under  any

            workmen's compensation  law, disability  benefits law  or any

            similar  law" only to the extent  such benefits represented a

            double recovery     thus mandating that the deduction be from

            the insured's total damages, not the policy's face value).

                      Casco included this claim in its amended complaint,

            in its motion for  summary judgment below, and in  its appeal

            brief.   The  Trust,  having no  stake  in this  debate,  has

            provided no  response.  Cipriano, the  beneficiary of Casco's

            policy,  was a  named  defendant in  this  suit and  filed  a

            general answer  to Casco's complaint, but  insofar as appears

            he did not file  an opposition to Casco's motion  for summary

            judgment (which  sought  relief  on the  point)  nor  did  he

                                         -3-
                                          3

            otherwise take part  in the proceeding  below.  Cipriano  has

            neither argued nor filed any  brief on appeal.  As  a result,

            we  are left to decide the matter with only Casco's arguments

            to guide us.   See Allgeier  v. United States, 909  F.2d 869,
                           ___ ________     _____________

            871-72 n.3 (6th  Cir. 1990) (considering an  appeal solely on

            the brief of the appellant when the appellee failed to file a

            brief) (citing, inter alia, Fed. R. App. P. 31(c)'s statement
                            __________

            that  "[i]f an appellee fails  to file a  brief, the appellee

            will  not be heard at  oral argument except  by permission of

            the  court"); Instituto Nacional de Comercializacion Agricola
                          _______________________________________________

            (INDECA) v.  Continental Illinois  Nat'l Bank and  Trust Co.,
            ________     _______________________________________________

            858  F.2d 1264,  1270-71 (7th  Cir. 1988)  (same); Teamsters,
                                                               __________

            Chauffeurs,  Warehousemen  &  Helpers   Local  Union  524  v.
            _________________________________________________________

            Billington, 402  F.2d 510, 511  (9th Cir. 1968)  (deciding an
            __________

            appeal on the appellant's brief and the trial record when the

            appellee failed to file an appeal brief).

                      In the absence of any legal or factual arguments to

            the  contrary, it is hard  to say that  Casco's arguments are

            not persuasive on this point.  Nor can we say  that Casco has

            failed to do all that might be expected  to pursue the issue.

            We accordingly  remand to the district  court with directions

            that  it  issue  a  declaratory  judgment  in  Casco's  favor

            providing,  in  effect, that,  "The  policy  issued by  Casco

            Indemnity Company provides  uninsured motorist coverage which

            is  excess  to any  workers'  compensation  benefits paid  to

                                         -4-
                                          4

            defendant  Cipriano  or received  by him  in the  future with

            respect to the accident of November 20, 1993."

                      Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
                      __________________________________________________

                                         -5-
                                          5