Supreme Court
No. 2023-251-Appeal. No. 2024-246-Appeal. (WC 15-518)
Rhode Island Joint Reinsurance : Association
v. :
Brenda Ricci et al. :
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or Email opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. Supreme Court
Present: Suttell, C.J., Robinson, Lynch Prata, Long, and Indeglia (ret.), JJ.
OPINION
Justice Long, for the Court. The defendants, Brenda and Ernest Ricci (Mrs.
Ricci and Mr. Ricci, respectively) (together, the Riccis or defendants), appeal from
a final judgment of the Superior Court entered following a jury verdict in favor of
the plaintiff, Rhode Island Joint Reinsurance Association (RIJRA or plaintiff), on
count I of RIJRA’s complaint for declaratory judgment and on all counts contained
in the defendants’ counterclaims. The Riccis also appeal from the denial of their
motions for a new trial. 1 This action arose as a result of a dispute regarding insurance
1 In reviewing the brief initially submitted by RIJRA, it has come to this Court’s attention that numerous quotations in that brief are not contained in the cases to which they are attributed. In fact, some quotations in the brief do not appear in any case that this Court has been able to locate. Additionally, in one instance, a citation is attributed to a case that does not exist; in another instance, a quotation attributed to the trial justice cannot be found in the trial transcript or the appendix. While we -1- coverage for a rental property owned by the Riccis. For the reasons set forth in this
opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court and the trial justice’s denial
of the motions for a new trial.
Facts and Procedural History
We glean the following facts from testimony elicited at trial and the record of
proceedings in the Superior Court. In February 2014, Mrs. Ricci2 purchased a
property at 876 Ten Rod Road in North Kingstown (the property) for $21,000 at a
foreclosure sale. Subsequently, Mrs. Ricci obtained a dwelling and personal liability
policy from RIJRA for the property for the period of February 27, 2014, to
February 27, 2015. At the time of purchase, an individual named David Christian
(Mr. Christian) lived in the property; he had purchased the property via quitclaim
deed in 2012. The Riccis opted to allow Mr. Christian and his family to remain in
the house and pay them rent; the parties executed a two-year lease on March 1,
have addressed this matter with the responsible attorneys, we take this opportunity to reiterate in no uncertain terms that advancements in technology do not absolve attorneys from their obligations to ensure the accuracy and veracity of their filings. 2 Mr. Ricci bid on the property at the foreclosure sale and assigned his bid to his wife; Mrs. Ricci purchased the property. She was the sole named insured on the insurance policy. -2- 2014. 3 The Riccis also agreed to allow Mr. Christian, who had been in the process
of renovating the house, to continue with his renovations.
Mr. Christian paid rent for March but refused to pay the April rent. In the
midst of this dispute over rent, Mr. Christian sought an inspection of the property.
The inspection occurred on April 29, 2014, after which the building and zoning
official for the Town of North Kingstown issued a notice of condemnation to Mr.
Christian detailing the code violations. Specifically, the inspector noted electrical,
mechanical, and plumbing systems in “a hazardous condition”; a lack of sanitary
work surfaces and kitchen floor; missing windows on the second and third floors;
openings in the eaves and soffits; and the possibility of exposed lead paint and
asbestos.
Mrs. Ricci filed a complaint for eviction for non-payment of rent in District
Court on April 23, 2014. Mr. Christian then filed a verified complaint and motions
for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction for protection from
unlawful eviction on April 29, 2014. The temporary restraining order was granted
that same day and stipulated that Mrs. Ricci must “pay for all lodging and living
3 Only Mrs. Ricci was listed on the lease as the landlord. -3- expenses.” Mrs. Ricci ultimately received a judgment for possession against Mr.
Christian on June 11, 2014. Mr. Christian subsequently vacated the premises.
When Mr. Ricci visited the property on June 15, 2014, the house was empty,
and he discovered damage he believed had been caused by Mr. Christian and called
the police. Mr. Ricci had only visited the house once previously, after his bid had
been accepted at the foreclosure sale; at no point had Mrs. Ricci ever set foot on the
property. As part of the police investigation, an officer questioned Mr. Christian,
who stated that “[e]verything he took out of the home he had a receipt for” and that
he was “within his right to leave the home as he did.” On June 30, 2014, Mrs. Ricci
filed an insurance claim with RIJRA on the property, alleging that the damage had
occurred as a result of vandalism.
RIJRA hired Flanagan Claims Service (Flanagan), which inspected the
property for the reported damages on July 8, 2014; Flanagan, in a letter to Mrs. Ricci,
summarized its conclusions: “Our inspection revealed the damage to the dwelling
was the result of unfinished remodeling and we found no evidence of vandalism.”
The letter also expressly stated that RIJRA “fully reserves unto itself all
defenses * * *.”
On October 19, 2015, RIJRA filed a single-count declaratory judgment action,
seeking a judicial determination about the parties’ rights and obligations under the
policy. The Riccis answered the complaint and added counterclaims for declaratory
-4- judgment seeking a determination that RIJRA was required under the policy to
proceed to an appraisal of the property, among other claims. In February 2017,
RIJRA moved to bifurcate, or in the alternative, stay defendants’ counterclaims
“unless and until they obtain a judgment entitling them to insurance benefits under
their policy of insurance with RIJRA.” After a hearing on the matter, a justice of the
Superior Court granted the motion and stayed the counterclaims. In May 2019,
RIJRA moved to amend its complaint with leave of court to add a second and third
count alleging that the Riccis had made material misrepresentations and engaged in
fraud. The Riccis answered the amended complaint but did not object to RIJRA’s
motion to amend, and the motion was granted by rule of court.
The Superior Court held a weeklong jury trial in late October and early
November 2022. Mrs. Ricci was represented by counsel, and Mr. Ricci represented
himself. Before the trial began, the trial justice heard motions in limine on
October 25, 2022. The relevant motions will be discussed where appropriate.
Trial began on October 26, 2022. The Riccis presented their case first.4 They
called Mrs. Ricci; Gary Tedeschi, the building official and zoning enforcement
officer for the Town of North Kingstown; Patrick Dowling, Jr., an attorney who
represented them in a number of real estate transactions; Officer Michelle Kinney, a
4 At the hearing on the motions in limine, the parties discussed the order of proof during trial. The trial justice ultimately granted the Riccis’ motions to be heard first. -5- patrol officer with the North Kingstown Police Department; William D’Amico II, a
public adjustor; Mr. Ricci; and Karen Valente, a senior property examiner with
RIJRA. RIJRA opted not to call any witnesses; because Mr. Christian was not
available, his deposition was offered by RIJRA and read into the record. During
deliberations, the jury sent the trial justice the following question: “With regard to
the first question on the verdict form. What is considered to be alleged damage?
For example, is the alleged damage that which is contained in Exhibit I, the
Performance Adjusting Estimate?” After conferring with the attorneys, the trial
justice sent back her answer: “Yes, Exhibit I, the Performance Adjusting Estimate is
considered to be alleged damage along with any other evidence that has been put
properly before you with respect to the issue of damage that you deem appropriate.”
The jury reached a verdict on November 2, 2022, answering “No” to the
question, “Do you find that Brenda Ricci and Ernest Ricci have proven by a fair
preponderance of the evidence that the alleged damage occurred between
February 27, 2014 and June 15, 2014?” Because they answered no, they did not
have to reach the other two questions on the form: “Do you find that Brenda Ricci
and Ernest Ricci have proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the
damages alleged were caused by vandalism?” and “Do you find that Rhode Island
Joint Reinsurance Association has proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence
that Brenda Ricci or Ernest Ricci or both intentionally concealed or misrepresented
-6- any material fact or circumstance; or engaged in fraudulent conduct; or made false
statements concerning their insurance claim?” Counsel for Mrs. Ricci asked to poll
the jurors, who each confirmed that they agreed with the result on the first question
of the verdict form.
The trial justice entered judgment in favor of RIJRA on November 10, 2022.
The judgment stated that (1) Mrs. Ricci’s insurance policy for the property did not
cover claims relating to the alleged vandalism loss; (2) RIJRA had no obligation to
reimburse defendants for any claims related to the alleged vandalism loss; and (3)
RIJRA is entitled to deny coverage for and disclaim liability for any claim related to
the alleged vandalism loss at the property. The trial justice also entered judgment in
favor of RIJRA with respect to all counts contained within Mrs. Ricci’s
counterclaim, as well as Mr. Ricci’s counterclaim.
The Riccis separately filed motions for a new trial; the trial justice held a
hearing on December 14, 2022. She denied the motions, and the Riccis each
appealed both the judgment and the denial of their respective motions for a new trial.
Issues Presented
On appeal, the Riccis allege a litany of errors. 5 They argue that the trial
justice erred by: (1) denying several of their motions in limine; (2) declining to admit
5 Mr. Ricci joined Mrs. Ricci’s brief in this Court. As such, we refer to the Riccis jointly in addressing their arguments. In the proceedings below, the Riccis filed separate but substantively identical pleadings and motions. -7- several pieces of evidence that the Riccis attempted to introduce at trial; (3) failing
to accommodate their requests related to jury instructions; and (4) denying their
motions for a new trial. They also argue that RIJRA breached the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing. A number of these errors relate to two central issues
that came up repeatedly at trial: RIJRA’s ability to mount a case on its fraud claim
and whether to send the case to appraisal. We will address each assignment of error
in turn.
Motions to Preclude RIJRA from Presenting Evidence of Fraud
The Riccis argue that the trial justice erred in denying their motions in limine
to preclude RIJRA from presenting evidence on its fraud claim and admitting
evidence of fraud. During the hearing on the motions in limine, the Riccis cited
Optical Works and Logistics, LLC v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited, 525 F.
Supp. 3d 295 (D.R.I. 2021), for the proposition that an insurer cannot present
evidence about arguments it did not make to the insured when it refused to cover a
claim, but the trial justice found the facts in this case distinguishable. She also noted
that “[t]hese arguments most probably should have been made at that time [i.e., the
time RIJRA moved to amend their complaint] in this [c]ourt’s opinion.” The trial
justice continued that, to suggest that RIJRA is “trying to pull a fast one and add a
fraud count here is,” in her opinion, “completely unfounded.” She then denied the
motions.
-8- The Riccis now allege that this was error. It appears that the crux of their
argument is that RIJRA acted improperly in amending its declaratory judgment
action five years after the Riccis first reported the loss and over three years after it
filed the initial action. They argue, “[w]hether Ricci had or had not objected to
RIJRA’s Motion to Amend the [Declaratory Judgment] action, or whether Ricci had
or had not raised any affirmative defenses, does not excuse the failure of RIJRA to
comply with the mandate of the law and its fiduciary duty * * *.” The Riccis cite
Hahn v. Allstate Insurance Company, 15 A.3d 1026 (R.I. 2011), for the proposition
that if an insurer refuses to submit a claim for appraisal, then it must specify with
particularity the reason for the denial of coverage. The Riccis also cite Optical
Works and Briere v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, 116
F.4th 32 (1st Cir. 2024), for the notion that an insurer should not be permitted to
introduce defenses at trial that were not included in its denial letter. The Riccis
further argue that the trial justice erred by not permitting Mrs. Ricci to introduce
testimony that RIJRA added this fraud claim because it had realized that its original
defenses lacked merit.
We review “the grant or denial of a motion in limine for an abuse of
discretion.” Salvatore v. Palangio, 247 A.3d 1250, 1258 (R.I. 2021) (quoting State
v. Marte, 92 A.3d 148, 150 (R.I. 2014)). Here, it is evident that the trial justice did
not abuse her discretion in denying the Riccis’ motions in limine to preclude RIJRA
-9- from presenting evidence of fraud. None of the cases cited by the Riccis provide
support for their position. Both Optical Works and Briere involved defenses raised
by insurance companies in breach of insurance contract suits; but here, the fraud
claim was one of the counts in RIJRA’s declaratory judgment action. See Optical
Works, 525 F. Supp. 3d at 301; Briere, 116 F.4th at 33-34. As the trial justice
observed, this case is “different from cases where the insurance company is trying
to add testimony at trial, or present testimony at trial with respect to additional
theories or reasons for denial of coverage. It’s just not the case here.” Rather, RIJRA
filed the instant action for declaratory relief, and requested a stay of adjudication of
defendants’ counterclaims, explicitly “for the purpose of determining the parties’
respective rights and obligations under a[n] * * * insurance policy issued by [RIJRA]
to Brenda Ricci.”
Through this claim of error, the Riccis attempt to relitigate (or rather, litigate
for the first time) something that should have been argued when RIJRA first moved
to amend its complaint to add the counts for fraud. To argue for the first time in the
weeks leading up to trial after years of discovery that RIJRA should be estopped
from litigating a central part of their amended complaint defies logic. It was well
within the trial justice’s discretion to allow RIJRA to present evidence related to the
claims in its amended complaint, especially after there had not previously been any
sort of registered objection. The Riccis also had the opportunity to rebut evidence
- 10 - of fraud during the trial itself. To suggest that admission of that evidence was so
prejudicial as to warrant a new trial is therefore unsupported. The trial justice did
not abuse her discretion in denying the Riccis’ motions in limine to preclude RIJRA
from presenting evidence on fraud.
Denial of Request to Send the Matter to Appraisal
The Riccis also argue that the trial justice erred in declining to order that the
matter go to appraisal between RIJRA and the Riccis. During the hearing on the
motions in limine, the issue arose in the context of the Riccis’ motions to allow them
“to [i]ntroduce, [p]resent and [a]dmit [e]vidence on [i]ncreased [c]ost to [r]epair
[p]roperty [b]ased on [p]resent [c]ost [v]alue and [r]eplacement [c]ost.” The trial
justice sought confirmation from the parties that if the Riccis prevailed at trial, the
case would be submitted for appraisal; counsel for RIJRA agreed, but counsel for
Mrs. Ricci disputed that they had reached an agreement. After some discussion, the
Riccis agreed to pass the motions without prejudice. 6 Counsel for Mrs. Ricci
brought up the issue of appraisal again when trial began and asked whether it would
be permissible for him to mention it during his opening statement. The trial justice
responded that appraisal was beyond the scope of what should be covered, given that
“[t]his is about liability, not damages.” She noted, “It’s not an issue. * * * [A]s I
6 Although it appears that the trial justice understood this decision to pass the motions as tacit acceptance of the appraisal submission agreement and the scope of the dispute for trial, the Riccis continued to contest this throughout trial. - 11 - understand it, the parties have agreed that if the jury finds in your favor, then the
defendant or the insurance company has agreed” to submit the matter for appraisal.
Appraisal came up again during the direct examination of Mr. Ricci. The trial justice
responded, “They agreed to appraisal. We’ve gone over this. They’ve agreed.” The
issue came up again next when RIJRA moved at the close of the Riccis’ case for a
judgment as a matter of law. Counsel for Mrs. Ricci brought up the appraisal issue
in his objection to the motion. The trial justice responded: “You continue to talk
about the appraisal process. It’s agreed to. In the event that you prevail in the end,
the company will go to appraisal.”
The Riccis again allege on appeal that the insurance policy contained a
provision that afforded “either party the right to have disputes over the amount of
loss resolved through an appraisal process.” They claim that RIJRA “refused to
submit to an appraisal.” By filing a complaint for declaratory judgment, the Riccis
allege that RIJRA reframed the dispute to be about the “scope of coverage” rather
than the “scope of loss,” which was improper. Despite the Riccis’ numerous
attempts to convince the trial justice to order the matter to appraisal, she refused,
which they allege is reversible error. We interpret defendants’ assignment of error
as a question of the admissibility of evidence, namely, whether the trial justice erred
in preventing them from presenting evidence related to interest on the cost of repair.
To the extent that the Riccis also challenge the trial justice’s decision rejecting their
- 12 - request to send the matter to appraisal, they cite no authority for the proposition that
suggests that the trial justice (1) had this authority and (2) neglected to use it as
compelled by law. 7
“The admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial
justice.” Estrella v. Janney Montgomery Scott LLC, 296 A.3d 97, 103 (R.I. 2023)
(brackets omitted) (quoting Cappuccilli v. Carcieri, 174 A.3d 722, 729 (R.I. 2017)).
“[T]his Court will not interfere with the trial justice’s decision unless a clear abuse
of that discretion is apparent.” Berman v. Sitrin, 101 A.3d 1251, 1259 (R.I. 2014)
(brackets omitted) (quoting Morel v. Napolitano, 64 A.3d 1176, 1179 (R.I. 2013)).
This Court will uphold a trial justice’s decision to admit evidence unless the trial
justice clearly abused their discretion and the evidence is both prejudicial and
irrelevant. Accetta v. Provencal, 962 A.2d 56, 60 (R.I. 2009).
By the plain language of the insurance policy issued by RIJRA to Mrs. Ricci,
“either [party] may demand an appraisal of the loss” if the parties “fail to agree on
the amount of loss.” After the Riccis requested the opportunity to present evidence
on interest, the trial justice evaluated the scope of RIJRA’s claims and the Riccis’
counterclaims and concluded that appraisal fell outside the scope of issues at the
7 The Riccis reference G.L. 1956 § 27-5-3, but this chapter is about fire insurance. Even so, § 27-5-3 merely includes language for the provisions of a standard fire insurance policy, including for appraisal. Nowhere in this section is there language to suggest that a trial justice has a mandatory (or really, any) role to play in these sorts of disputes. - 13 - trial. Based on the language of the insurance policy and the claims raised by both
parties, the trial justice’s decision was eminently reasonable. She repeatedly noted
that there would be an opportunity to submit the damages for appraisal if the Riccis
prevailed at trial. Given that appraisal would only become relevant if a jury found
that the Riccis’ claims were in fact covered under the insurance policy, the trial
justice did not abuse her discretion in refusing to allow the Riccis to introduce
evidence at trial regarding the amount of their loss.
Motions to Preclude RIJRA from Introducing Evidence of Fraud in Mr. Christian’s Deposition
The Riccis also argue that the trial justice erred in admitting allusions to or
discussions of fraud that appeared in Mr. Christian’s testimony. The Riccis first
moved to preclude RIJRA from introducing any evidence of fraud in the deposition
of Mr. Christian or, in the alternative, from introducing the deposition transcript at
all, during the hearing on the motions in limine. They argued that they were not
prepared to cross-examine him on the issue of fraud at that deposition because
RIJRA had not yet filed its amended complaint to include the fraud claim at that
time. The trial justice queried whether counsel for Mrs. Ricci was at the deposition,
to which he answered affirmatively. The trial justice then denied the motions to
exclude the transcript. The parties revisited the issue during trial once the Riccis
rested and RIJRA endeavored to read Mr. Christian’s deposition transcript into
evidence. Both sides submitted objections to certain pages or lines, asking those - 14 - excerpts not to be read aloud. Many of Mrs. Ricci’s objections were withdrawn or
overruled. Before the deposition was read into evidence, counsel for Mrs. Ricci
renewed the objection to the introduction of any deposition testimony about fraud,
which the trial justice denied once again.
The Riccis argue here that “RIJRA first raised fraud allegations * * * almost
a year after having taken Christian’s deposition.” They claim they were “blindsided”
because “[f]raud was not a pleaded defense when the deposition occurred.” They
continue, “RIJRA clearly had fraud in mind * * * [covering] the topic extensively in
the deposition, addressing all the information it knew for years but had held back
from Ricci. Yet the Ricci’s [sic] had no prior knowledge RIJRA would elicit such
testimony and were unprepared to address these unpleaded allegations.” As a result,
Mrs. Ricci objected to the introduction of the deposition at trial because “she lacked
opportunity to cross-examine Christian on the later-added fraud count.” Because
her objections during the hearing on the motions in limine and during trial were
denied, the Riccis conclude that there was prejudicial error.
We consider whether the trial justice’s decision to allow the discussion of
fraud in Mr. Christian’s deposition transcript into evidence was an abuse of
discretion. Estrella, 296 A.3d at 103. The Riccis do not allege a specific basis for
error before this Court, nor is one at all apparent from the record. The admission of
this deposition comports with both Rule 804(b)(1) of the Rhode Island Rules of
- 15 - Evidence (former testimony of an unavailable declarant) and Rule 32(a)(3)(B) of the
Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure (permissibility of deposition testimony at
trial for an out-of-state witness). We find it notable that Mrs. Ricci’s counsel was at
the original deposition and failed to re-depose Mr. Christian after RIJRA filed its
amended complaint. To suggest that the Riccis suffered any prejudice is therefore
unfounded when they had ample opportunity to cross-examine him about RIJRA’s
fraud claim both at the deposition and following the amendment of RIJRA’s
complaint. The trial justice’s decision to deny the motions to exclude any mention
of fraud in the deposition was therefore reasonable and should not be disturbed.
Introduction of the Text Messages
The Riccis assign error to the trial justice’s rulings not to admit text messages
Mr. Christian sent Mr. Ricci, which illustrated the increasing animosity in their
relationship. The Riccis first attempted to introduce text messages between Mr.
Christian and Mr. Ricci while Mr. Dowling, the attorney, was on the stand. Counsel
for RIJRA objected on hearsay grounds, which the trial justice sustained. Counsel
for Mrs. Ricci noted his objection to the trial justice’s decision to bar the admission
of the texts. While Mr. Ricci was on the stand, counsel for Mrs. Ricci once again
tried to introduce the text messages by asking him to read them into the record;
counsel for RIJRA objected again on hearsay grounds. The trial justice queried
whether the messages had been authenticated, to which counsel for Mrs. Ricci
- 16 - replied that they had been in the eviction proceeding. The trial justice disputed that
that authentication was sufficient and noted that the Riccis had not laid the proper
foundation for them to come in. She concluded that the messages were hearsay and
sustained RIJRA’s objection. When counsel for Mrs. Ricci brought up the reply-
letter doctrine as a strategy for authentication, the trial justice noted that she would
be amenable to this method but noted that they still had “to establish a foundation.”
She gave counsel for Mrs. Ricci the opportunity to research alternative hearsay
exceptions and exemptions under which the Riccis could seek admission of the texts
over the weekend recess.
Counsel for Mrs. Ricci broached the issue of introducing the text messages a
final time when court resumed after breaking for the weekend. He presented several
avenues for admission of the texts, arguing for their introduction under the present
sense impression exception to hearsay, as a declaration of state of mind, or a business
record. The trial justice rejected the first justification because “[t]hese text messages
refer to the past tense, not the present tense” and, as to the latter two, concluded that
those exceptions did not apply. She sustained the objection. Ultimately, the only
text message conversation admitted at trial was a brief exchange between Mr.
Christian and Mr. Ricci about which counsel for RIJRA asked Mr. Ricci during his
cross-examination. The Riccis did not object to the questioning of Mr. Ricci about
these texts, nor when RIJRA sought to admit this brief conversation in full.
- 17 - The Riccis contend before this Court that the trial justice’s decisions not to
admit text messages Mr. Christian sent Mr. Ricci violated Rule 106 of the Rhode
Island Rules of Evidence (the rule of completeness) because RIJRA had used
excerpts of conversations to impeach Mr. Ricci while he was on the stand and they
wanted to use Mr. Christian’s responses “to rebut adverse inferences or provide
context.” The Riccis also argue that they had established authentication and
foundation for the text messages, contrary to the trial justice’s finding.
The exclusion of the text messages is a question of admissibility of evidence,
so we consider whether the trial justice abused her discretion. See Estrella, 296 A.3d
at 103. The rule of completeness does not apply here. The Riccis sought to introduce
hundreds of texts between the two men over a period of months. Rule 106 cannot
be stretched in this way, especially when the Riccis do not explain what they are
trying to contextualize and why it would require so many texts sent over such a long
duration. See, e.g., 1 Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal
Evidence § 1.44 at 297 (4th ed. 2013) (“The point of Rule 106, after all, is not to
insist on completeness as an end in itself, but to allow others to insist on admitting
enough of a statement to put it in appropriate context.”). The text messages that
were admitted stand on their own; they were used to impeach Mr. Ricci on
cross-examination and offer evidence of his state of mind of immense animus toward
Mr. Christian. Even if the trial justice had erred, the Riccis would still have had to
- 18 - surmount the ruling that the messages sent by Mr. Christian were inadmissible
hearsay. On appeal, the Riccis do not attempt to contest the trial justice’s ruling on
hearsay, but it is clear that she did not err in concluding that the text messages were
inadmissible. The trial justice therefore did not err when she declined to admit this
plethora of text messages, and we affirm her decision to deny the Riccis’ attempt to
introduce them.
Introduction of the Eviction Proceeding Transcript
The Riccis also submit that the trial justice erred in refusing to admit the entire
transcript of the eviction proceeding when she permitted RIJRA to impeach Mr.
Ricci with certain portions of the transcript. Counsel for Mrs. Ricci first broached
this issue on the morning of the second day of trial. He anticipated that RIJRA would
use the transcript to impeach Mr. Ricci when he took the stand; counsel argued that
under Rule 106, the Riccis were entitled to have the rest of the transcript admitted,
or at the very least, that counsel for Mrs. Ricci should be permitted to review the
transcript in its entirety. The trial justice questioned why counsel had not ordered
the transcript in the first place and confirmed with RIJRA that it did not intend to
introduce it. The trial justice concluded that Rule 106 does not apply if the document
is not going to be introduced (i.e., used only for impeachment purposes). During
RIJRA’s cross-examination of Mr. Ricci, RIJRA showed him an excerpt from his
testimony during the eviction proceeding to refresh his memory but did not introduce
- 19 - the transcript as an exhibit. Counsel for Mrs. Ricci renewed the objection and noted
the exception once again.
Before this Court, the Riccis aver that “it was error to allow RIJRA to use only
portions of a transcript from the [eviction] trial to impeach Ernest Ricci, without
allowing Ricci to introduce the entire transcript for context or rehabilitation.” They
seem to renew their Rule 106 argument raised by the failure to allow in the text
messages between Mr. Christian and Mr. Ricci.
The exclusion of the full eviction proceeding transcript is another question of
admissibility of evidence. See Estrella, 296 A.3d at 103. Rule 106 in full reads:
“When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an
adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any
other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered
contemporaneously with it.” R.I. R. Evid. 106. As the trial justice noted in denying
the Riccis’ request, RIJRA had already indicated that they would not be introducing
the transcript; she correctly concluded that Rule 106 applies only when a statement
is actually introduced and that it was therefore inapplicable. Given that the Riccis
could point to no other rule or caselaw to support their argument, we conclude that
it was reasonable for the trial justice to deny this request.
- 20 - Jury Instructions
On appeal, the Riccis argue that the trial justice committed two distinct
reversible errors related to the jury instructions: (1) by declining to instruct the jury
on the definitions of “vandalism” and “fixtures” and (2) by refusing to include an
instruction that the loss could have occurred from theft. We will address each
assignment of error in turn.
Counsel for Mrs. Ricci noted before the jury entered on the last day of
testimony that their proposed jury instructions offered “several definitions of
vandalism.” After the close of testimony and after both sides rested, the trial justice
gave the parties the opportunity to weigh in on her jury instructions. After counsel
for RIJRA made his suggested additions and deletions to the instructions, counsel
for Mrs. Ricci made his. Specifically, Mrs. Ricci’s counsel asked the trial justice to
include language that the damage could have occurred as a result of “malicious[]
mischief, or theft.” The trial justice declined to do so because “the original claim
was for vandalism,” which is “the way the claim was presented to the insurance
company.” Mrs. Ricci’s counsel noted his objection.
We review jury instructions de novo. Armour v. Bader, 316 A.3d 1164, 1173
(R.I. 2024). “This Court examines jury instructions in their entirety to ascertain the
manner in which a jury of ordinarily intelligent lay people would have understood
them.” Mangiarelli v. Town of Johnston, 289 A.3d 560, 566 (R.I. 2023) (brackets
- 21 - omitted) (quoting Riley v. Stone, 900 A.2d 1087, 1092 (R.I. 2006)). “We do not
examine single sentences or selective parts of the charge; rather, the challenged
portions must be examined in the context in which they were rendered.” Id. (quoting
Riley, 900 A.2d at 1092-93). The “trial justice fulfills his or her obligation to charge
the jury properly by framing the issues in such a way that the instructions reasonably
set forth all of the propositions of law that relate to material issues of fact which the
evidence tends to support.” King v. Huntress, Inc., 94 A.3d 467, 482 (R.I. 2014)
(quoting Morinville v. Old Colony Co-operative Newport National Bank, 522 A.2d
1218, 1222 (R.I. 1987)). “An incorrect charge warrants reversal only if a jury could
have been misled to the prejudice of the complaining party.” State v. Ros, 973 A.2d
1148, 1166 (R.I. 2009) (quoting State v. Graham, 941 A.2d 848, 855 (R.I. 2008)).
Refusal to Instruct on Definitions of “Vandalism” and “Fixtures”
The Riccis assign error to the trial justice’s “refus[al] to instruct the jury on
‘vandalism’ and ‘fixtures.’” However, neither counsel for Mrs. Ricci nor Mr. Ricci
ever objected on the record to the trial justice’s decision not to include definitions of
vandalism and fixtures in the jury instructions. Indeed, there was no mention
whatsoever about the definition of fixtures during any of the discussions on jury
instructions. As such, this argument is waived. See Super. R. Civ. P. 51(b) (“No
party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless the
- 22 - party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly
the matter to which the party objects and the grounds of the party’s objection.”).
Refusal to Include Instruction on Theft
The Riccis further allege that the trial justice erred in rejecting their request
for a theft instruction, arguing that it is possible that the damage could have occurred
as a result of theft during the period between condemnation and Mr. Ricci’s June
visit.
The jury instructions stated, “The insured, Brenda Ricci, bears the burden of
proving by a fair preponderance of the evidence: (1) that the loss occurred within the
policy period; and (2) that the loss was a covered loss under the insurance policy.”
The first question on the verdict form asked the jury whether “Brenda Ricci and
Ernest Ricci have proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the alleged
damage occurred between February 27, 2014 and June 15, 2014[.]” This was the
only question the jury answered, as there was no need to go any further given that
the failure to prove that the damage happened during the period of coverage defeated
the Riccis’ case. However, the second question asked whether they proved that “the
damages alleged were caused by vandalism[.]”
Although the Riccis properly objected to the trial justice’s decision not to
include language about theft in the final jury instructions, their argument fails. There
is no evidence to suggest that the trial justice’s decision not to include a theft
- 23 - instruction prejudiced the Riccis’ rights in the case. See Ros, 973 A.2d at 1166. The
only question on which the jury deliberated was whether the damage occurred within
the policy period, so the cause of the damage—whether theft or otherwise—was not
a question ever considered by the jury. There was therefore no opportunity for any
alleged error to undermine the Riccis’ theory of the case and therefore no basis for
reversal.
Motions for a New Trial
The Riccis argue that the trial justice erred in denying their motions for a new
trial. In their motions for a new trial, they argued that the verdict was (1) “contrary
to the credible weight of the evidence, and not supported by sufficient evidence”;
(2) “contrary to the unbiased and uncontradicted evidence of multiple witnesses”;
(3) “contrary to applicable case law”; (4) “contrary to the law, the evidence and the
weight thereof”; (5) “ignores and is contrary to all reasonable inferences”; and (6)
“fails to respond to the merits of the controversy and fails to administer substantial
justice” and that “the charge to the jury was improper * * *.”
“We review a trial justice’s decision on a motion for a new trial with
deference.” Kazarian v. New London County Mutual Insurance Company, 331 A.3d
984, 990-91 (R.I. 2025). We “will affirm a trial justice’s decision on a motion for a
new trial as long as the trial justice conducts the appropriate analysis, does not
overlook or misconceive material evidence, and is not otherwise clearly wrong.”
- 24 - Zarembka v. Whelan, 176 A.3d 485, 487-88 (R.I. 2018) (quoting Bitgood v. Greene,
108 A.3d 1023, 1028 (R.I. 2015)). “In considering a motion for a new trial, the trial
justice sits as a super juror and is required to make an independent appraisal of the
evidence in light of his or her charge to the jury.” Dextraze v. Bernard, 253 A.3d
411, 416 (R.I. 2021) (quoting Letizio v. Ritacco, 204 A.3d 597, 602 (R.I. 2019)). “If,
after conducting this analysis, the trial justice concludes that the evidence is evenly
balanced or that reasonable minds could differ on the verdict, she or he should not
disturb the jury’s decision.” Id. (quoting Letizio, 204 A.3d at 602).
During the hearing on the motions for a new trial, after hearing the parties’
arguments, the trial justice began her decision by reciting the correct legal standard
and the process of her review. She recited the procedural history and summarized
the Riccis’ arguments.
The trial justice evaluated each of the Riccis’ assignments of error in turn.
She first considered the relevant evidence and testimony presented at trial. After
discussing the witnesses’ testimony, she observed: “An exhaustive review of the
record evidence points to one conclusion. With respect to Mr. Ricci’s testimony,
there’s not enough ink in the pen to document his inconsistent statements and false
statements contained in his testimony.” She determined that the jury’s verdict was
supported by the weight of the evidence, concluding, “[a]fter independently
assessing the credibility of the witnesses and affording the testimony the appropriate
- 25 - weight, this Court concludes that the verdict is correct.” She then mentioned the
Riccis’ contention regarding the jury instructions and charge but noted that they did
not object to either the verdict form or the jury charge, so their arguments on both
were waived. She next addressed the contention that she erred in denying the Riccis’
motions to preclude RIJRA from submitting evidence on fraud. She maintained that
the cases cited by the Riccis were inapposite and perceived no error in her denial of
their motions. She similarly concluded that allowing the deposition of Mr. Christian
into evidence and her refusal to admit the glut of messages between Mr. Christian
and Mr. Ricci were proper. She then denied the Riccis’ motions for a new trial.
We note that defendants failed to properly transmit the hearing on the motions
for a new trial transcript to this Court. Article I, Rule 11(a) of the Supreme Court
Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that “[p]romptly after filing the notice of
appeal the appellant shall comply with the provisions of Rule 10(b) and shall take
any other action necessary to enable the clerk to assemble and transmit the record.”
Although the Riccis attempted to order the transcript from the hearing on their
motions for a new trial, it was never received by this Court. As we have noted, “[t]he
appellant, not the clerk, is responsible for the timely transmission of the record and
the transcript under our rules.” Small Business Loan Fund Corporation v. Gallant,
795 A.2d 531, 533 (R.I. 2002). Normally, this Court would not rule on an issue
before us without a transcript, but in this case, RIJRA included the full transcript as
- 26 - an appendix to its brief in this Court, so we will undertake its review. On the merits,
however, the Riccis’ argument fails.
Our review of the trial justice’s decision reveals that she properly performed
her function. She applied the appropriate standard, conducted the correct analysis,
and accurately evaluated both the facts and the law. As such, we affirm the trial
justice’s decision denying the Riccis’ motions for a new trial.
Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Finally, the Riccis argue that “the acts and omissions of RIJRA constitute a
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the
insurance contract between the parties, such that a new trial is warranted.” However,
the Riccis do not cite to any specific action of the trial justice or a defect in the trial
process related to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Article I, Rule
16(a)(2) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure requires an appellant
to provide in their brief “[a] specification of the errors claimed with a page citation
to the places in the record and the appendix where such error can be found[.]” The
Riccis offer no such citation. This issue, to the extent that one even exists, is
therefore waived. See Horton v. Portsmouth Police Department, 22 A.3d 1115, 1130
(R.I. 2011) (“Simply stating an issue for appellate review, without a meaningful
discussion thereof or legal briefing of the issues, does not assist the Court in focusing
on the legal questions raised, and therefore constitutes a waiver of that issue.”
- 27 - (quoting Kaveny v. Town of Cumberland Zoning Board of Review, 875 A.2d 1, 10
(R.I. 2005))).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial justice’s decision on the
defendants’ motions for a new trial and reject all of their specific claims of error.
We therefore affirm the judgment in favor of the plaintiff and remand the papers to
the Superior Court.
- 28 - STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE Licht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903
OPINION COVER SHEET
Rhode Island Joint Reinsurance Association v. Brenda Title of Case Ricci et al. No. 2023-251-Appeal. Case Number No. 2024-246-Appeal. (WC 15-518)
Date Opinion Filed July 30, 2026
Suttell, C.J., Robinson, Lynch Prata, Long, and Justices Indeglia (ret.), JJ.
Written By Associate Justice Melissa A. Long
Source of Appeal Washington County Superior Court
Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Sarah Taft-Carter
For Plaintiff:
Gail M. Ryan, Esq. Attorney(s) on Appeal For Defendants:
Richard A. Pacia, Esq.
SU-CMS-02A (revised November 2022)