RI Case Law Update

  • August 11, 2021

Intentional Deletion and Manipulation of Electronic Data Leads to Default Judgment

Discovery, Litigation, RI Case Law Update, Sanctions

Every day we are reminded that we live in a digital world by looking down at our smartphones and logging onto our computers. Though the legal field is generally slow to jump on the bandwagon of new technology, the use of technology has crept its way into the discovery process, where the production of information commonly comes from electronic sources. As easily as this information can be obtained and stored on our devices, it can also be deleted. Thus, it is extremely important that parties involved in litigation be aware of the consequences that stem from failing to preserve electronically stored information. Recently, a defendant in a case involving fraud and conversion was made painfully aware of these consequences by having a default judgment entered against it for intentionally deleting electronically stored information prior to handing it over to the plaintiff during discovery.

In its complaint, Atalian brought claims against several defendants alleging fraud and conversion. During discovery, Atalian filed a motion for sanctions against

Continue Reading...
  • April 04, 2021

Be Careful What You Offer in Your Next Offer of Judgment!

RI Case Law Update

The Federal and most state rules of civil procedure contain an offer of judgment provision.  It allows a defendant to issue an “offer of judgment” to a plaintiff to settle the case.  It is designed to create a pause with the plaintiff to assess her case and decide whether she wants to proceed forward with the litigation or resolve it.  The purpose of the rule is to encourage prompt and early resolution of disputes.  A defendant utilizing the rule has an incentive to make a realistic offer that is inclusive of accrued interest and other litigation expenses (such as attorney’s fees where there is a fee shifting provision).  If an offer of judgment is not accepted, it potentially creates a cost shifting provision in favor of the defendant if the plaintiff does not recover an amount greater than the amount offered.  It also sets up an opportunity for the defendant to assert that no attorney’s fees should be

Continue Reading...
  • November 30, 2020

A Certain Degree of Control Could Save You From Suit

Rhode Island, RI Case Law Update, Worker's Compensation

Here is the fact scenario:  A contractor employs certain employees that are union members or employees that have a tendency to “roam” and/or be “loaned”—i.e. the employee technically works for one entity, but also performs work for another affiliated company.  The employee is injured while working for the affiliated entity and not his actual employer.  The employee collects workers compensation insurance benefits from his actual employer and then tries to file suit against the affiliated company.

Question:  Is the employee entitled to collect workers compensation benefits from his actual employer, and then file a lawsuit to collect damages from the affiliated company?

Answer: Not according to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

In Selby v. Baird, the plaintiff arrived at a residential home to begin his job as the foreman of a tree removal crew for a tree removal company.  While the crew was setting up their equipment at the job site,

Continue Reading...
  • December 13, 2019

Claims against RIDOT – Important Judicial Decisions in 2019

Litigation, RI Case Law Update

The Rhode Island Superior Court came down with a few interesting decisions this year concerning Rhode Island General Law Section 37-13.1-1.  That statute deals with actions against the State of Rhode Island on Highway and Public Works contracts.  The statute provides in part:

  • 37-13.1-1. Suits allowed – Jurisdiction – Statute of limitations – Procedure.   (a) Any person, firm, or corporation which is awarded a contract subsequent to July 1, 1977, with the state of Rhode Island, acting through any of its departments, commissions, or other agencies, for the design, construction, repair, or alteration of any state highway, bridge, or public works other than those contracts which are covered by the public works arbitration act may, in the event of any disputed claims under the contract, bring an action against the state of Rhode Island in the superior court for Providence county for the purpose of having the claims determined, provided notice of the general nature of the claims shall have been given
Continue Reading...
  • August 28, 2019

Additional Insurance Coverage: Fundamentals and Misconceptions

AI Coverage, Construction Insurance, Contract Documents, ISO Forms, RI Case Law Update, Risk Management

Additional insured (“AI”) requirements for commercial general liability (CGL) policies are very common in construction contracts.  An Owner routinely requires its general contractor (“GC”) to provide AI coverage for itself, its affiliates, and sometimes a handful of other entities (lender, architect, etc.).  In turn, the GC mandates its subcontractors to provide AI coverage for the GC, the Owner, and a cast of other characters.  While frequently used, for good reason, this risk transfer tool is often misunderstood.  In this post, I will explain the purpose of AI coverage, identify what it does and does not cover, and provide answers to a few misconceptions about additional insured coverage.

The Purpose of Additional Insured Coverage

The design of AI coverage is to trigger the insurance procured by lower-tier contractors.  The Owner, GC, and subcontractors all have CGL insurance, but the goal of additional insured coverage is to make sure that someone else’s insurer will be on the hook to provide defense and indemnity should

Continue Reading...