Travelers' denial of UM/UIM coverage to a state employee hit while driving her own car on the job stands, the First Circuit held.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals on September 11 affirmed summary judgment for Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, ending a former Rhode Island state worker's bid for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage after a 2018 crash.
The employee was on the job when an underinsured driver struck her, but she was in her personal car because no State vehicle was available that day. Travelers, which insured the State of Rhode Island, denied her UM/UIM claim - the coverage that pays when the at-fault driver's policy falls short. Its reason: she was not in a covered auto and did not qualify as an insured under the policy. The employee conceded the policy text supported that reading but argued Rhode Island law entitled her to coverage anyway.
The court had earlier certified two questions to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which answered both against her. That court held the policy's text was "the cornerstone" and that a narrow exception - which in some circumstances might allow employees to claim named-insured status - did not reach a government employer with over 17,000 workers. It also held the state's UM/UIM statute requires coverage only where the policy provides primary coverage for the vehicle involved.
Returning to the First Circuit, the employee raised three fallback arguments. On the first - the argument with the most direct relevance to claims handling - she said Travelers waived its coverage defense by not addressing every legal theory when it first denied the claim. The court disagreed. Travelers had cited the specific policy provisions behind its denial across three separate letters and had not introduced any later-acquired rationale at summary judgment. Imposing a duty on insurers to anticipate every argument a claimant might later raise, the court said, goes beyond what Rhode Island law requires.
Her second argument - that the coverage limitation voided the policy absent a signed rejection form from the State - failed because the coverage was never mandated in the first place. Her third, that Travelers failed to send required notices about UM/UIM availability at a 2008 renewal and three 2018 endorsements, failed for lack of record evidence. At summary judgment, the court noted, parties must "put up or shut up."
The panel affirmed on all five counts, including bad faith and punitive damages claims the employee did not separately challenge on appeal.
