Filed: Mar. 24, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Souter, Associate Justice, * and Howard, Circuit Judge.Vitones request some nine months before the accident.According to Wagenmaker, the declaration means nothing.like any contract, an insurance policy is to be read as a whole.those listed on the declarations page;
Not for Publication in West’s Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 09-1732
JOYCE WAGENMAKER,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. William E. Smith, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Circuit Judge,
Souter, Associate Justice,* and Howard, Circuit Judge.
Timothy J. Robenhymer for appellant.
John A. Donovan, with whom Christopher Reilly and Sloane &
Walsh were on brief, for appellee.
March 25, 2010
*
The Hon. David H. Souter, Associate Justice (Ret.) of the
Supreme Court of the United States, sitting by designation.
Per Curiam. On July 3, 2006, Joyce Wagenmaker was
injured when an unidentified vehicle collided with a car belonging
to Vito Vitone, in which she was a passenger. Wagenmaker’s
subsequent claim for benefits from defendant Amica Mutual Insurance
Company, Vitone’s insurer, was denied on the ground that Vitone’s
car had no uninsured motorist coverage, it having been cancelled at
Vitone’s request some nine months before the accident. The change
was reflected in the policy’s amended declarations page, which
clearly indicated that the car was “NOT COVERED” for damages by an
uninsured driver.
According to Wagenmaker, the declaration means nothing.
She points to the boilerplate terms of the policy, which provide
that Amica will pay any damages that a passenger in a “covered
auto” is entitled to collect from an uninsured driver. She quotes
the definition of “covered auto” as “[a]ny vehicle shown in the
Declarations,” notes that Vitone’s car is identified in the amended
declarations, and says “it is of no consequence whether Mr. Vitone
canceled the uninsured motorist coverage”: an automobile
specifically designated on the declarations page as “NOT COVERED”
with respect to a particular category of insurance is nonetheless
a “covered auto” as to that same category.
Wagenmaker’s position ignores the law of contract: “the
rights and liabilities of the parties to an insurance contract are
to be ascertained in accordance with the terms as set forth
-2-
therein,” Nat’l Refrigeration, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 947
A.2d 906, 909 (R.I. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted), and
like any contract, an insurance policy is to be read as a whole.
Town of Cumberland v. R.I. Interlocal Risk Mgmt. Trust, Inc.,
860
A.2d 1210, 1215 (R.I. 2004). The terms of a policy thus include
those listed on the declarations page; indeed, these are of
“paramount importance.” Mallane v. Holyoke Mut. Ins. Co.,
658 A.2d
18, 20 (R.I. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also
Lehroff v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co.,
638 A.2d 889, 892 (N.J. Super.
Ct. App. Div. 1994) (“[I]t is the declaration page, the one page of
the policy tailored to the particular insured and not merely
boilerplate, which must be deemed to define coverage and the
insured’s expectation of coverage.”), quoted in
Mallane, 658 A.2d
at 21. The declarations page of Vitone’s policy unambiguously
states that there is no uninsured motorist coverage for the car in
which Wagenmaker rode.
The judgment of the district court in favor of Amica is
affirmed. Costs are taxed in favor of Amica.
-3-
