Althea Johnson v. Horace Johnson ( 2021 )

December 20, 2021
Supreme Court
No. 2020-105-M.P.
(No. 19-1719)
Althea Johnson et al. :
v. :
Horace Johnson 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
No. 2020-105-M.P.
(No. 19-1719)
Althea Johnson et al. :
v. :
Horace Johnson et al. :
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
OPINION
Justice Robinson, for the Court. This case has come before us pursuant to
a March 13, 2020 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
certifying a question to this Court in accordance with Article I, Rule 6(a) of the
Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. The certified question reads as
follows:
“What is the definition of ‘civil action’ in R.I.G.L. § 27-7-2.2?”1
1
General Laws 1956 § 27-7-2.2 provides as follows:
“In any civil action in which the defendant is covered by
liability insurance and in which the plaintiff makes a
written offer to the defendant’s insurer to settle the action
in an amount equal to or less than the coverage limits on
the liability policy in force at the time the action accrues,
and the offer is rejected by the defendant’s insurer, then
the defendant’s insurer shall be liable for all interest due
on the judgment entered by the court even if the payment
-1-
The order further states that the First Circuit would “welcome further guidance from
the Rhode Island Supreme Court on any other relevant aspect of Rhode Island law
that it believes would aid in the proper resolution of the issues pending in this
matter.”
This case was heard before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing
the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised herein should not be
summarily decided. After a close review of the record and careful consideration of
the parties’ arguments (both written and oral), we are satisfied that cause has not
been shown and that this case may be decided at this time.
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we answer the certified question as
follows: The term “civil action” in G.L. 1956 § 27-7-2.2 refers to a judicial
proceeding which “is commenced by the filing [in court] of a complaint and all other
required documents together with the fees prescribed by law.” Super. R. Civ. P. 3.
I
Facts and Travel
We need not delve very deeply into the factual background of this case due to
the fact that we are called upon to answer only a narrow question of statutory
of the judgment and interest totals a sum in excess of the
policy coverage limitation. This written offer shall be
presumed to have been rejected if the insurer does not
respond in writing within a period of thirty (30) days.”
(Emphasis added.)
-2-
interpretation. In relating the necessary facts, we rely primarily on the opinion issued
by the First Circuit that resulted in its decision to certify the instant question to this
Court. See Johnson v. Johnson, 952 F.3d 376 (1st Cir. 2020).
On December 17, 2017, Horace Johnson, a resident of Massachusetts, was
driving a car in Providence, Rhode Island, in which Carlton Johnson, one of the
plaintiffs, was a passenger. Id. at 377. The car struck a utility pole and both Horace2
and Carlton were seriously injured. Id. In addition to Horace, State Road Auto Sales
(which had leased the car to Horace) and Arbella Mutual Insurance Company
(Arbella) are the other defendants in this matter. Id. Arbella had issued an
automobile insurance policy to Horace, which policy had a limit of $100,000 for
coverage for bodily injury to guest occupants of the motor vehicle injured in
accidents outside of Massachusetts. Id.After the accident, but before suit was filed by any party, Carlton’s counsel
sent a letter to Arbella dated January 25, 2018, which letter demanded a settlement
in the amount of the $100,000 policy limit. Id. On February 28, 2018, Arbella sent
a response to Carlton’s counsel indicating its acceptance of the settlement offer. Id.Thereafter, on March 6, 2018, Carlton and his mother, Althea Johnson, filed suit in
2
We shall refer to several parties by their first names for the purpose of clarity.
In so doing, we intend no disrespect.
-3-
the Rhode Island Superior Court.3 Id. Arbella removed the case to federal court.
Id.The defendants then moved for summary judgment on all counts. Id. The
United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted that motion and,
in so doing, rejected Carlton’s argument that § 27-7-2.2 applied to the case and
would render Arbella’s acceptance of the settlement offer ineffective because the
acceptance occurred after the thirty-day statutorily prescribed deadline. Id. The
District Court held that the “civil action” language in the statute at issue required
that a “legal proceeding in court * * * be underway” for the statute to be applicable;
in view of that holding, a valid settlement contract was entered into between the
parties for the policy limit and there was no need for any further court proceedings.4
Id. Carlton filed a timely appeal of the District Court’s decision as to Counts One
3
Althea and Carlton filed a three-count complaint. Count One sought damages
for Carlton’s personal injuries, medical treatment, lost wages, loss of consortium,
and loss of earning capacity. Count Two sought recovery by Althea for the
post-accident care she provided to Carlton, which allegedly resulted in lost wages,
loss of consortium, and other damages. Count Three alleged that Arbella had
violated certain provisions of Rhode Island and Massachusetts insurance law.
4
The District Court also granted summary judgment as to Count Two, holding
that Althea could not recover because: (1) Rhode Island does not recognize a claim
for loss of consortium for a parent who is not the parent of an unemancipated minor
(Carlton was twenty-eight years old at the time of the accident); and (2) it is the law
in Rhode Island that a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress requires
that the parent be present at the scene of the accident, and Althea was not alleged to
have been present. The District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of
defendants on Count Two was not appealed.
-4-
and Three; and, on March 13, 2020, the First Circuit entered an order certifying the
instant question to this Court. Id. at 377-78. On October 23, 2020, this Court
accepted the certified question for determination.
II
Standard of Review
We have held that “[c]ertified questions are questions of law; and,
consequently, this Court reviews them in a de novo manner.” In re Kapsinow, 220
A.3d 1231, 1233 (R.I. 2019); see also Mancini v. City of Providence, 155 A.3d 159,
161 (R.I. 2017). We have also consistently held that this Court applies a de novo
standard of review when addressing issues of statutory interpretation. In re
Kapsinow, 220 A.3d at 1233; see also State v. LaRoche, 925 A.2d 885, 887 (R.I.
2007).
III
Issues Presented
Carlton contends before this Court that the term “civil action” in § 27-7-2.2
means “the legal right of an injured party to seek relief in a Court of Law.” In so
arguing, he relies on this Court’s opinions in DeMarco v. Travelers Insurance Co.,
26 A.3d 585 (R.I. 2011), and Summit Insurance Co. v. Stricklett, 199 A.3d 523 (R.I.
2019). He further avers that the legislative intent in enacting § 27-7-2.2 was to
encourage settlement of claims from the time the action accrues and that, therefore,
-5-
the statute could not have been meant to exclude “pre-suit written offers * * *.”
Carlton further finds significance in the language in the statute referring to “the time
the action accrues,” contending that said language indicates that a “civil action”
comes into existence prior to the filing of a complaint. Lastly, he posits that
construing § 27-7-2.2 to require the commencement of a judicial proceeding would
be absurd.
In response, Arbella contends that the “United States District Court itself
previously recognized that the statute only applies to matters in suit;” it further avers
that the statute does not apply to “conduct of non-litigants during settlement
negotiations in the claim stage, before suit is filed.”
IV
Analysis
We are concerned in this case with the First Circuit’s certified question asking
this Court to define the term “civil action” as it is used in the following statutory
language:
“In any civil action in which the defendant is covered by
liability insurance and in which the plaintiff makes a
written offer to the defendant’s insurer to settle the action
in an amount equal to or less than the coverage limits on
the liability policy in force at the time the action accrues,
and the offer is rejected by the defendant’s insurer, then
the defendant’s insurer shall be liable for all interest due
on the judgment entered by the court even if the payment
of the judgment and interest totals a sum in excess of the
policy coverage limitation. This written offer shall be
-6-
presumed to have been rejected if the insurer does not
respond in writing within a period of thirty (30) days.”
Section 27-7-2.2 (emphasis added).
For the sake of clarity, we note that the definition of “civil action” is of import
in the case before the First Circuit because, if “civil action” is defined as requiring
the commencement of a judicial proceeding, as Arbella suggests, then the statute is
not applicable to the facts of the case and Arbella properly accepted Carlton’s
settlement offer. Consequently, a settlement contract would exist between the two
parties, and nothing further would remain to be determined by a court. If, on the
contrary, we define “civil action” in the manner which Carlton suggests, Arbella’s
acceptance of the settlement offer was not sufficiently timely under the statute and
this case would need to proceed in court.
In order to resolve this question, we turn to our jurisprudence with respect to
the interpretation of statutes. “[W]hen the language of a statute is clear and
unambiguous, this Court must interpret the statute literally and must give the words
of the statute their plain and ordinary meanings.” Alessi v. Bowen Court
Condominium, 44 A.3d 736, 740 (R.I. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); see
also Accent Store Design, Inc. v. Marathon House, Inc., 674 A.2d 1223, 1226 (R.I.
1996). It is only if the statutory language is ambiguous that we will turn to “our
well-established maxims of statutory construction in an effort to glean the intent of
the Legislature.” In re B.H., 194 A.3d 260, 264 (R.I. 2018) (internal quotation marks
-7-
omitted); see also In re Kapsinow, 220 A.3d at 1234. In addition, “under no
circumstances will this Court construe a statute to reach an absurd result.” In re
Kapsinow, 220 A.3d at 1234.
After careful review of the statutory section at issue and the contentions of the
parties before this Court, we are of the decided opinion that § 27-7-2.2 is clear and
unambiguous; as such, our role is simply to articulate the plain meaning of the
statutory language. See Skaling v. Aetna Insurance Co., 742 A.2d 282, 291 (R.I.
1999) (“The language of § 27-7-2.2 is neither complex nor ambiguous * * *.”). It is
clear to this Court that, as used in the statute at issue, the term “civil action” requires
that a judicial proceeding have been commenced; it does not refer to the situation at
issue in the present case where suit had not yet been filed when the settlement offer
and the acceptance of the settlement offer took place.
Indeed, this Court has previously (albeit not in the recent past) defined “civil
action.” See Thrift v. Thrift, 30 R.I. 357, 363, 75 A. 484, 487 (1910). In that earlier
case, this Court wrote: “The term ‘civil action,’ as used in statutes, has been held to
be a proceeding in a court of justice by one party against another for the enforcement
or protection of a private right or the redress of a private wrong.” Id. (emphasis
added) (internal quotation marks omitted). Perhaps more importantly, Rule 3 of the
Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows: “A civil action is
commenced by the filing of a complaint and all other required documents together
-8-
with the fees prescribed by law.”5 See also Dist. Ct. Civ. R. 3; R. Dom. Rel. P. 3.
Accordingly, it is patently clear to this Court that the term “civil action” in
§ 27-7-2.2 refers to a judicial proceeding which is commenced by the filing of a
complaint and all other required documents together with the fees prescribed by law.
That being said, we pause to briefly address Carlton’s contentions to the
contrary. We note initially that Carlton has been unable to point this Court to any
pertinent source in which “civil action” is defined in the manner for which he is
advocating. Instead, he relies heavily on our opinions in DeMarco, 26 A.3d at 585,
and Summit Insurance Co., 199 A.3d at 523. It is true that, as the First Circuit noted,
those two cases at some point involved § 27-7-2.2 and “had their genesis in pre-suit
settlement negotiations.” Johnson, 952 F.3d at 378. However, in our view, neither
opinion is relevant to the question currently presented to us.
In DeMarco, a settlement offer for the policy limit was made before as well
as after the commencement of a judicial proceeding. DeMarco, 26 A.3d at 588, 590.
Therefore, given the chronology of the two offers in DeMarco, that case involved a
“civil action” under the definition advocated for by either party in this case. As such,
5
Although we need not and do not rely on it in making our determination in
this case, it is interesting to note that Black’s Law Dictionary defines a “civil action”
as “[a]n action brought to enforce, redress, or protect a private or civil right; a
noncriminal litigation.” Black’s Law Dictionary 38 (11th ed. 2019).
-9-
the DeMarco opinion is not instructive on the issue presented herein.6 In Summit
Insurance Co., there was no settlement offer made by the plaintiff/injured party to
the insurance company for the policy limit prior to the commencement of the judicial
proceeding, and our analysis in that case was not based on § 27-7-2.2, nor did our
opinion even discuss that statutory section. Summit Insurance Co., 199 A.3d at 525,
527, 528-33 (noting only that the trial justice found § 27-7-2.2 did not apply to the
case). Accordingly, it too is not instructive.7
Lastly, in our view, Carlton’s contention that the “at the time the action
accrues” language in § 27-7-2.2 weighs in favor of his proposed definition of “civil
action” is unavailing. It will be recalled that § 27-7-2.2 provides in relevant part as
follows: “In any civil action in which the defendant is covered by liability insurance
and in which the plaintiff makes a written offer to the defendant’s insurer to settle
the action in an amount equal to or less than the coverage limits on the liability policy
in force at the time the action accrues * * *.” (Emphasis added.) Carlton contends
6
We note as well that, in answering this certified question, we are called upon
simply to interpret the language of § 27-7-2.2. This case does not implicate our
opinion in Asermely v. Allstate Insurance Company, 728 A.2d 461 (R.I. 1999), and
our jurisprudence stemming therefrom.
7
We are further unswayed by Carlton’s reliance on Armacost v. Amica Mutual
Insurance Co., 11 F.3d 267 (1st Cir. 1993), for the purpose of reminding this Court
that the purpose of § 27-7-2.2 is “to accelerate the settlement of tort cases.”
Armacost, 11 F.3d at 270; see also Skaling v. Aetna Insurance Co., 742 A.2d 282,
291 (R.I. 1999).
- 10 -
that that language makes it “clear that ‘action’ as used in the statute occurs prior to
the filing of a complaint.” He relies on the following statement in Cardi Corp. v.
State, 561 A.2d 384 (R.I. 1989): “Numerous courts have held that a cause of action
does not begin to accrue until an injured party has a right to seek relief in court.”
Cardi Corp., 561 A.2d at 387. We are not convinced by this argument; while a cause
of action certainly can accrue prior to a judicial proceeding being commenced, it is
not yet a civil action until a complaint is filed.
As such, we remain unpersuaded by Carlton’s contentions before this Court,
and we shall abide by the plain meaning of the statutory language at issue.
V
Conclusion
Accordingly, we answer the certified question as follows: The term “civil
action” in G.L. 1956 § 27-7-2.2 refers to a judicial proceeding which is commenced
by the filing of a complaint and all other required documents together with the fees
prescribed by law. The papers in this case may be returned to the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for further proceedings.
- 11 -
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
Licht Judicial Complex
250 Benefit Street
Providence, RI 02903
OPINION COVER SHEET
Title of Case Althea Johnson et al. v. Horace Johnson et al.
No. 2020-105-M.P.
Case Number
(No. 19-1719)
Date Opinion Filed December 20, 2021
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and
Justices
Long, JJ.
Written By Associate Justice William P. Robinson III
Certified Question by the United States Court of
Appeals For the First Circuit in accordance with
Source of Appeal Article I, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules of
Appellate Procedure.
Judges O. Rogeriee Thompson, Norman H. Stahl, and
Judicial Officer from Lower Court David J. Barron of the United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit.
For Plaintiffs:
Ronald J. Resmini, Esq.
Charles N. Garabedian, Esq.
Attorney(s) on Appeal For Defendants:
Thomas A. Pursley, Esq.
Stephen E. Navega, II, Esq.
Lisa M. DeMari, Esq.
SU-CMS-02A (revised June 2020)