statute
requires
that
an
insurer pay
does so require.
prejudgment
to the plaintiff.
Some background
Melinda Ryan
Armacost, was
struck by
an
automobile
resident
of
appellant,
owned and
New
York.
Amica
Providence,
operated
Owen
Mutual
Rhode Island.
by
was
Stephen
insured
Insurance
B. Owen,
by
Company
A complaint
was
defendant(Amica)
of
filed in
the
district court against Owen, but the summons was returned non
___
est
___
inventus.
________
naming
Plaintiff
promptly
amended her
complaint,
statute.1
After
discovery
was
completed,
negligence by its
but
insured.
prior
The
to
only
in
Shortly
counsel made a
of
prior
to
$175,000.
trial
date,
$500,000" to
Amica
the
the
This
The
demand specifically
demand
and
made
again offered to
again
rejected.
settle for
The jury
27-7-2.2.
counter offer
Amica
plaintiff's
of
$175,000; the
returned a verdict
offer was
of $750,000.
of Amica's contractual
$495,000.2
The
required under
district
the
court then
statute
to
pay
held
policy
that Amica
plaintiff
was
prejudgment
the limits of
insurance policy."
the
statute at issue
Rhode Island
considered it
Supreme Court.
is the
United
opinion from
that
called
we are
upon
The only
interpreted by
court to
States District
has been taken.
to decide
how
have
Court in
the
This means
the Rhode
Island
____________________
2.
been reduced
the
-33
Supreme
this case.
opinion is
district
The standard
de
__
novo.
____
We
the statute in
of review of the
do not
court's determination of
the context of
district court's
accord deference
to
the
Salve
_____
27-7-2.2.
Island's
prejudgment
interest
statute
provides:
Interest in civil action.
In any
Interest in civil action.
civil action in
which a verdict is
rendered or a decision made for pecuniary
damages, there shall be added by the
clerk of the court to the amount of
damages, interest at the rate of twelve
per cent (12%) per annum thereon from the
date the cause of action accrued which
shall be included in the judgment entered
therein.
This section shall not apply
until entry
of judgment or
to any
contractual
-44
obligation where
provided or
as
action.
Id.
___
interest
to
any
is already
condemnation
9-21-10.
The
question is
whether the
statute,
statute,
27-7-2.2.
prejudgment interest
rejected-settlement-offer
supreme
court a question
interpretation of
the
of first impression
a state statute.
In this
involving the
case, however,
we think
A.
A.
the Rhode
interest due on
cases
The Applicability of
27-7-2.2 to the Direct Action
The Applicability of
27-7-2.2 to the Direct Action
____________________________________________________
Statute
Statute
_______
Amica's
follows.
interest
The
only
the
point
first
is
that
"in
liability insurance."
that, because it
statute,
on
issue
statutes
runs
as
granting
applies
covered by
argument
starting
are in derogation
2.2
So
which
construed,
27-7-
the defendant
Amica therefore
is
contends
"a defendant
covered by
-55
liability insurance,"
it
statute.
It argues
the
control
defendant's
of
insurer.
concludes,
is to
the
The purpose
protect a
interest liability
defendant,
of
but
the
defendant who
in excess of
lies
with
statute, Amica
is
insured from
to a
doctrine
But
against the
insurer
avoid the
it ignores
insurer is a
of defendant
the
legal fact
Owen.
The
not be
This case
originally
insured could
Owen's shoes.
started out, in
in which
the
If process had
sense for
was the
a "civil action
common
Amica
Amica stands in
27-7-2.2, as
or
action
as to
that the
been no different,
of the
complaint was
action statute,
of
meaning
derivative action.
direct
the words
plain
the strict
due.
in either case
it would
We see no basis
in logic
argument that
27-7-2.2
is not
-66
-77
B.
B.
district
makes
court's
a number
construction
of arguments
of
the
attacking the
statute.
The
rules of
applied by the
statutory construction
that
would have
been
as a result,
de
__
it
necessary
attack on the
whether
discuss point-by-point
The
we do not
defendant's
only question is
be affirmed.
We
by
the construction of
this statute
In Martin
______
1028 (R.I.
is one
of the
27-7-2.2.
of first
interest statute,
Island Supreme
held that
recompense to which
entitled, Dennis v.
______
Trust Nat'l Bank, 744
________________
Cir. 1984).
Martin, 559
______
A.2d at 1031;
Director of
___________
Public Works, 300 A.2d 273, 274 (R.I. 1973) (clear purpose of
____________
such legislation was to accelerate settlement of tort cases).
We have
of settlement purpose.
Roy v.
___
promote the
statute
cases.
has
the
same
purpose
to accelerate the
This purpose is
as
the
settlement
readily apparent
from its
risk of paying a
off an
offer of settlement.
We next turn
statutes.
two implicated
statute says:
"In any
___
decision is
-99
offer
force at
that
offer of
case was a
settlement
was rejected
manifest
plaintiff's
amount "equal to
policy in
It is beyond
that
the
to the
prejudgment
was
for an
in the liability
action accrue[d],
insurer."
civil
and the
27-7-2.2.
interest
statute
It is
applies
seems
words,
27-7-2.2
interest.
It says that
"then
the
evident to
requires
defendant's
the
us
that, by
payment
of
its
very
prejudgment
shall
be
liable
for
all
___
(Emphasis added.)
argument of defendants to
it
that
seems
obvious
prejudgment
"all
interest"
the contrary,
can
only
mean
obvious.
There would be
no
had to
interest.
pay
for rejecting
Defendant's
the
offer was
post-judgment
-1010
We
think
the
following statement
by
the
Rhode
_______
____
v. Langlois, R.I., 170 A.2d 618. We may
________
not where no ambiguity exists search
beyond the
statute for
a different
meaning. Hathaway v. Hathaway, 52 R.I.
________
________
39, 156 A. 800. Even hardship does not
justify a court in reading into a statute
something contrary to its unequivocal
language. Clark v. Orabona, 1 Cir., 59
_____
_______
F.2d 187.
Only when the legislature
sounds an uncertain trumpet may the court
move in to clarify the call.
But when
the call is clear and certain as it is
here we may not consider whether the
statute as written comports with our
ideas of justice, expediency or sound
public policy.
In such circumstances
that is not the court's business. Blais
_____
v. Franklin, 31 R.I. 95, 77 A. 172.
________
Kastal v.
______
A.2d 262,
264-65 (R.I.
1963).
Out of
similar
an abundance
of caution
we have
examined
statutes
accompanied
provisions, or separate
to expedite claims
Of
have prejudgment
by rejected-settlement-offer
settlement.
in tandem
Civ. Code
Gen. Stat.
Stat. Ann.
549.09(c) (West
so.
-1111
52-192a(b); Minn.
Stat.
408.040.2 (Vernon
1990); Ohio
Rev. Code
Ann.
1343.03(c)
instance
where prejudgment
apply to
a rejected-
interest has
been
settlement-offer statute.
rejected-settlement-offer
statute's plain
held not
to
Given the
language and
the
statute in tort
cases, we
think the
Rhode Island
-1212