Tourtellot & Co. v. Duxbury & Ray Insurance Agency

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Tourtellot & Co. v. Duxbury & Ray Insurance Agency

653 A.2d 758, 1995 R.I. LEXIS 52

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedFebruary 16, 1995

DocketNo. 94-193-Appeal

StatusPublished

This text of 653 A.2d 758 (Tourtellot & Co. v. Duxbury & Ray Insurance Agency) 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

Tourtellot & Co. v. Duxbury & Ray Insurance Agency, 653 A.2d 758, 1995 R.I. LEXIS 52 (R.I. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This case came before a hearing panel of this court for oral argument February 7, 1995, pursuant to an order that had directed both parties to appear in order to show cause why the issues raised by this appeal should not be summarily decided.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and that the issues should be summarily decided.

The defendant, Employers Mutual Casualty Company, appeals from a summary judgment entered in the Superior Court in favor of the plaintiff. Our analysis of the record in this case indicates that there were material issues of fact in respect to whether the plaintiff had made a decision not to obtain coverage for the risk of power failure that occurred on its premises. There are also issues of fact concerning whether plaintiffs loss was due to hurricane damage or to the failure of its own back-up generator. We believe that Jerry’s Supermarkets, Inc. v. Rumford Property and Liability Insurance Co., 586 A.2d 539 (R.I.1991) and Pressman v. Aetna Casualty & Surety, 574 A.2d 757 (R.I.1990), are not controlling under the possible factual circumstances of the case at bar.

Consequently, the summary judgment entered in the Superior Court is hereby vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.

LEDERBERG, J., did not participate.-

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

ORDER

This case came before a hearing panel of this court for oral argument February 7, 1995, pursuant to an order that had directed both parties to appear in order to show cause why the issues raised by this appeal should not be summarily decided.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and that the issues should be summarily decided.

The defendant, Employers Mutual Casualty Company, appeals from a summary judgment entered in the Superior Court in favor of the plaintiff. Our analysis of the record in this case indicates that there were material issues of fact in respect to whether the plaintiff had made a decision not to obtain coverage for the risk of power failure that occurred on its premises. There are also issues of fact concerning whether plaintiffs loss was due to hurricane damage or to the failure of its own back-up generator. We believe that Jerry’s Supermarkets, Inc. v. Rumford Property and Liability Insurance Co., 586 A.2d 539 (R.I.1991) and Pressman v. Aetna Casualty & Surety, 574 A.2d 757 (R.I.1990), are not controlling under the possible factual circumstances of the case at bar.

Consequently, the summary judgment entered in the Superior Court is hereby vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.

LEDERBERG, J., did not participate.-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

653 A.2d 758, 1995 R.I. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tourtellot-co-v-duxbury-ray-insurance-agency-ri-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack