You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Sjogren v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance

Citations: 703 A.2d 608; 66 A.L.R. 5th 755; 1997 R.I. LEXIS 304; 1997 WL 757719Docket: 96-49-Appeal

Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island; December 4, 1997; Rhode Island; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island addressed whether a stepson from a former marriage qualifies as a 'relative' under the uninsured motorists provisions of an automobile insurance policy. The plaintiffs, comprising a married couple and the stepson, challenged a summary judgment in favor of Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, which had denied their claim based on the interpretation of 'relative.' The trial court had sided with the insurer, ruling that the stepson did not meet the policy's definition of a 'relative' since he was not related by blood, marriage, or adoption. On appeal, the Supreme Court scrutinized the policy's language, emphasizing that ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the insured. The Court considered whether affinal relationships, such as those with stepchildren, could persist after a marriage ends through divorce. Drawing on analogous case law, the Court recognized that such relationships might continue if a strong familial bond is maintained, thereby qualifying the stepson as a 'relative' under the policy. Consequently, the Court reversed the summary judgment, allowing the plaintiffs' appeal to proceed and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Legal Issues Addressed

Affinal Relationships and Insurance Coverage

Application: The Court recognized that affinal relationships, such as those with stepchildren, may survive the dissolution of marriage and qualify as 'relatives' for insurance purposes.

Reasoning: The Connecticut court in Remington rejected the notion that affinity ends with marriage termination, citing that the survival of such relationships depends on context, including insurance coverage scenarios.

Ambiguity in Insurance Contracts

Application: The Court determined that ambiguities in insurance contracts should be construed in favor of the insured, especially regarding the definition of 'relative.'

Reasoning: If the terms are ambiguous, they are construed in favor of the insured.

Interpretation of Insurance Policy Terms

Application: The Supreme Court interpreted the term 'relative' in an insurance policy and found that it could include a stepson from a former marriage if such a relationship persists post-divorce.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court emphasized that summary judgment should only be granted when no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.