DePalma v. Metropolitan Property & Liability Ins.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

DePalma v. Metropolitan Property & Liability Ins.

615 A.2d 1019, 1992 R.I. LEXIS 275

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedNovember 13, 1992

DocketNos. 92-77-Appeal, 92-223-Appeal

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 615 A.2d 1019 (DePalma v. Metropolitan Property & Liability Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DePalma v. Metropolitan Property & Liability Ins., 615 A.2d 1019, 1992 R.I. LEXIS 275 (R.I. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

These consolidated cases came before the court for oral argument November 10,1992 pursuant to an order which had directed all parties to show cause why the issues raised by these appeals should not be summarily decided. The plaintiffs in both cases appealed from a declaratory judgment in favor of Metropolitan Property and Liability Ins. Co. in respect to an intra-policy stacking of uninsured motorist coverage. In both cases the plaintiffs paid a single premium for uninsured motorist bodily injury coverage, although each set of plaintiffs insured two vehicles.

After considering the arguments of counsel and the memoranda filed by the parties in light of the provisions of G.L.1956 (1989 Reenactment) § 27-7-2.1(C), we are of the opinion that the trial justice was correct in holding that stacking of coverage was neither required by statute nor permitted by the policy in light of the fact that only a single premium was paid.

[1020]*1020Consequently, the plaintiffs’ appeals in both cases are denied and dismissed. The judgments entered in the Superior Court are hereby affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

These consolidated cases came before the court for oral argument November 10,1992 pursuant to an order which had directed all parties to show cause why the issues raised by these appeals should not be summarily decided. The plaintiffs in both cases appealed from a declaratory judgment in favor of Metropolitan Property and Liability Ins. Co. in respect to an intra-policy stacking of uninsured motorist coverage. In both cases the plaintiffs paid a single premium for uninsured motorist bodily injury coverage, although each set of plaintiffs insured two vehicles.

After considering the arguments of counsel and the memoranda filed by the parties in light of the provisions of G.L.1956 (1989 Reenactment) § 27-7-2.1(C), we are of the opinion that the trial justice was correct in holding that stacking of coverage was neither required by statute nor permitted by the policy in light of the fact that only a single premium was paid.

[1020]*1020Consequently, the plaintiffs’ appeals in both cases are denied and dismissed. The judgments entered in the Superior Court are hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 A.2d 1019, 1992 R.I. LEXIS 275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/depalma-v-metropolitan-property-liability-ins-ri-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack