No. 10-428 William Reagan v. City of Newport (show cause)
No. 10-385 Daniel Turacova MD v. Ronald DeThomas (show cause)
No. 10-376 Janina Klara v. First Bristol Corp. (full briefing)
No. 10-375 Great American E&S Ins. v. End Zone Pub (show cause)
No. 10-374 David Henderson v. Nationwide Ins. (full briefing)
No. 10-353 Arthur Toegemann v. Rich (show cause)
No. 10-315 Sherry Almonte v. Rita S. Kurl, MD (full briefing)
Nos. 10-279, AVCORR Mgmt. v. Central Falls Detention (show cause)
No. 10-271 Jerry Ims v. Richard Audette (show cause)
No. 10-264 Jessup & Conroy, P.C. v. Mary Seguin (show cause)
No. 10-263 Quality Concrete Corp. v. Travelers Ins. (show cause)
The plaintiff appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff contends that the defendant had a duty to defend the plaintiff and was required to pay for separate legal counsel for the plaintiff once it became apparent that the defendant had a conflict of interest. The plaintiff also contends that there was a question of material fact as to whether the defendant had a conflict requiring the plaintiff to hire separate legal counsel.
Nos. 10-251, EP Sch. Comm. v. EP Educ. Assoc. (full briefing)
No. 10-244 Ronald Koziol v. Peerless Ins. Co. (show cause)
No. 10-231 Beverly Haviland v. Brown Univ. (full briefing)
No. 10-230 Greensleeves, Inc. v. Smiley (full briefing)
No. 10-229 Marietta Martone v. Patricia Lombardi (full briefing)
No. 10-207 Rebecca Book v. Education Partnership (full briefing)
(Also related to Nos. 10-157 and 10-208)
No. 10-203 Philip Pelletier v. Aphrodite Laureanno (show cause)
No. 10-176 Narr. Electric v. Frank Smith (show cause)
Plaintiff, Narragansett Electric Company, appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Salvatore Saccoccio, Jr., in his capacity as tax assessor for the city of Cranston, and Robert Strom, in his capacity as finance director for the city of Cranston. The sole issue on appeal is the subject matter jurisdiction of the Superior Court to hear this tax appeal, pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws § 44-5-26.
No. 10-171 Ambrose Mendes v. Alfred Factor (full briefing)
No. 10-162 James Casale v. City of Cranston (show cause)
The defendant appeals from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the plaintiff in this declaratory judgment action. This case presents an issue of law concerning the interpretation of § 45-19-1.1 as it relates to uninsured motorist benefits received by an injured firefighter.
No. 10-161 Everett McCain v. Town of N. Prov. (show cause)
The defendant, the town of North Providence, appeals from a grant of declaratory judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Everett McCain, and from the denial of defendant’s counterclaim for declaratory relief and damages. The sole issue on appeal is one of statutory interpretation, that is, whether the plaintiff qualifies as a “fire fighter” for purposes of Rhode Island General Laws § 45-19-1 (2009).
No. 10-158 Amanda Rodrigues Ferreira v. Liberty Mut. (show cause)
The plaintiff has appealed from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant in Superior Court, where plaintiff sought a declaration that defendant must provide uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage based upon plaintiff’s contention that she was a family member of the policyholder, her fiancé with whom plaintiff cohabitated at the time of the automobile accident. On appeal, plaintiff claims that the insurance policy is ambiguous and therefore must be strictly interpreted in favor of providing coverage. Plaintiff claims also that she is entitled to coverage based upon an evolving societal perception that the definition of “family” has become both flexible and uncertain.
No. 10-153 Cheryl Ouellette v. HSBC Bank (court conference)
No. 10-146 Anthony Bucci, et al. v. Lehman Bros. (full briefing)
No. 10-145 William Medeiros v. Bankers Trust Co. (show cause)
No. 10-142 Narragansett Elec. Co., et al. v. PUC (full briefing)
(Also related to no. 10-179)
No. 10-125 Portsmouth Water & Fire Dist. v. RIPUC, et al. (full briefing)
Nos. 10-87, Joseph Iozzi v. City of Cranston (full briefing)
No. 10-73 Yi Gu v. RIPTA (full briefing)
No. 10-66 Empire Acquisition Group, LLC v. Atlantic Mtg. Co., Inc. (show cause)
This case arises from the unsuccessful sale of an unimproved parcel of real property in Charlestown, Rhode Island. Plaintiff appeals from the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s complaint for specific performance and on two counts of defendant’s counterclaim, for declaratory judgment and breach of contract. Plaintiff contends that summary judgment was improperly granted in favor of defendant because genuine issues of material fact are in dispute concerning the “reasonableness” of the parties with respect to the failure to close on the scheduled closing date or within a reasonable time thereafter.
No. 10-14 Tijani Olamuyiwa v. Zebra Atlantek, Inc. (show cause)
The plaintiff appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff contends that the release he signed as part of a severance package was void under the Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA). The plaintiff contends that FEPA requires that both he and his attorney attest that the waiver of attorney’s fees in the severance settlement was not compelled as a condition of the settlement. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants failed to give notice of the release to his attorney. Therefore, the plaintiff contends that the release does not bar his discrimination claims.
No. 09-376 Rebecca Gushlaw v. Mattnew Milner (full briefing)
No. 09-368 Ferman Cipriano v. Prov. Sch. Bd. (show cause or FCC)
No. 09-358 Michael Derderian v. Essex Ins. Co. (full briefing)
No. 09-357 Dana Meade v. City of Woonsocket (show cause)
(Consolidated with No. 09-363 Bryan St. Pierre v. City of Woonsocket)
These consolidated civil cases are before the Court on the appeal of the defendant/third-party plaintiff, the City of Woonsocket, from the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the third-party defendant, Power Service, Inc., with respect to all three counts contained in the City’s third-party complaint. The City argues that the motion justice erred in finding that the statute of repose found at R.I. Gen. Laws 1956 § 9-1-29 barred the City’s tort-based claims against PSI for work performed in 1978 upon real property owned by the City, and that the motion justice also erred in refusing to grant the City a continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. The City further argues that the motion justice erred in denying the City’s motion for leave to amend its third-party complaint against PSI to add a count for breach of implied warranty, set forth by the City to preserve its claims against PSI in the face of summary judgment on the tort claims. Lastly, the City claims that the motion justice erroneously limited damages on any future breach of implied warranty claims by the City against PSI.
No. 09-349 Drs. Pass & Bertherman, Inc. v. Neighborhood Health (full briefing)
No. 09-312 Cheaters Inc. v. United Nat’l Ins. Co. (full briefing)
(Also related to No. 09-313)
No. 09-297 Jennifer and Jeremy Swain v. Estate of Shelley Tyre, et al. (full briefing)
No. 09-277 Joseph J., Jr. and Anita L. McGarry v. Alfred J. Coletti (full briefing)
No. 09-236 Town of Portsmouth et al. v. Jerry Ims (full briefing)
(Also related to Nos. 09-237, 09-238, and 09-239)
No. 09-226 Athena Prov. Place v. City of Prov. (show cause)
No. 09-215 Watson v. Murphy (full briefing)
Nos. 09-139, Condo Assoc. v. City of Prov. (show cause)
Foundry Development Associates, LLC has filed appeals in these two related cases, seeking review of a Superior Court order dismissing the plaintiffs’ respective complaints and finding that Foundry’s motion to intervene in the matter was therefore moot. The complaints filed by the plaintiffs below essentially alleged that the defendants took actions that resulted in the improper abandonment of a portion of Harris Avenue in the city of Providence, to the detriment of the plaintiffs. Foundry contends that it should have been allowed to intervene in the cases because it is the owner of property located within a 200-foot radius of the portion of the road to be abandoned.
No. 09-118 Patricia Lett v. Louis Guiliano, Jr. (full briefing)