Car insurance claims in Rhode Island

Rhode Island is an at-fault state, and its own statute says so in terms rather than leaving it to an absence. The chapter governing motor insurance is called the MOTOR VEHICLE REPARATION ACT — which is the label several states use for a no-fault scheme, so the name is the trap — but its declaration of purpose reads: «The legislature is concerned over the rising toll of motor vehicle accidents and the suffering and loss inflicted by them. THE LEGISLATURE HAS DETERMINED THAT IT IS A MATTER OF GRAVE CONCERN THAT MOTORISTS SHALL BE FINANCIALLY ABLE TO RESPOND IN DAMAGES FOR THEIR NEGLIGENT ACTS, SO THAT INNOCENT VICTIMS OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS MAY BE RECOMPENSED for the injury and financial loss inflicted upon them» (§ 31-47-1). The policy the chapter then defines is a liability policy, and no first-party benefit, tort threshold or election was found in anything read for this row — the contrast with North Dakota’s Auto Accident Reparations Act, which really is a no-fault scheme, is exact and is worth stating. Every owner’s policy must insure against liability for bodily injury, death and property damage, in Rhode Island or elsewhere in the United States, North America and Canada, exclusive of interest and costs, to limits of $25,000 for bodily injury to or death of one person, $50,000 where two or more are injured or killed in one accident, and $25,000 for damage to the property of others — OR a $75,000 combined single limit (§ 31-47-2(13)(i)(A)). ONE WARNING ABOUT CITATIONS TRAVELS WITH THIS ROW: the section most often quoted for Rhode Island’s minimum limits, § 31-31-7, was REPEALED ON 14 JULY 2021 by two companion 2021 acts, and with it §§ 31-31-4 to 31-31-21 — almost the whole of chapter 31-31 — so anything resting on it describes a provision that no longer exists.

Shared fault does not bar a claim at any percentage. In any action for personal injuries, for death resulting from them, or FOR INJURY TO PROPERTY, the fact that the injured person «may not have been in the exercise of due care» does not bar recovery; damages are simply «diminished by the finder of fact in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person injured» (§ 9-20-4). That makes Rhode Island a PURE COMPARATIVE state — a claimant found ninety per cent at fault still recovers ten per cent — which puts it with New Mexico and against every other state promoted in the same round. A 2019 amendment added something else worth knowing, because it is recent and statutory: the fact that the danger or defect was OPEN AND OBVIOUS no longer bars recovery either.

THE LIMITATION PERIODS ARE WHERE RHODE ISLAND DEPARTS FURTHEST FROM EVERY OTHER ROW IN THIS DATASET, AND THE SECOND FIGURE WILL LOOK LIKE AN ERROR. An action for injuries to the person must be brought within three years of accrual (§ 9-1-14(b)) — and quote subsection (b), because subsection (a) of the same section is the one-year period for «words spoken». BUT THERE IS NO SEPARATE PERIOD FOR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY ANYWHERE IN § 9-1-14, so a claim for a damaged vehicle falls into the general rule: «except as otherwise specially provided, ALL CIVIL ACTIONS SHALL BE COMMENCED WITHIN TEN (10) YEARS next after the cause of action shall accrue, and not after» (§ 9-1-13(a)) — as does an action on the policy as a contract. TEN YEARS IS THE LONGEST LIMITATION PERIOD ON ANY ROW HERE BY FOUR YEARS, AND IT IS NOT THREE; a summary giving three years for Rhode Island vehicle damage has carried the injury period across. This row does not assert that nothing else in Rhode Island law «specially provides» for vehicle damage, because no full-text search of title 9 was run. Suing the insurer is separately constrained, and the constraint comes first: an injured party «in his or her suit against the insured, shall not join the insurer as a defendant», and may sue it directly only where process against the insured was returned «non est inventus», or in three situations involving the insured’s death, or on a judgment already obtained against the insured alone (§ 27-7-2). Where the «non est inventus» route applies AND the suit was already properly filed against the insured within the three years AND the return was filed with the court, the deadline for the direct action against the insurer is extended by a further 120 days (§ 9-1-14(c)) — a mechanism found in no other jurisdiction in this dataset, and one whose conditions must be stated or it reads as a general grace period, which it is not.

Uninsured motorist coverage must be in every policy, «in limits set forth in each policy, BUT IN NO INSTANCE LESS THAN THE LIMITS SET FORTH IN § 31-47-2(13)(i)(A)», for protection against «uninsured motor vehicles AND HIT-AND-RUN MOTOR VEHICLES» and covering «PROPERTY DAMAGE, bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death». The default is equality with your own cover: «the insurer shall provide uninsured motorist coverage IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE INSURED’S BODILY INJURY LIABILITY LIMITS. The named insured shall have the option of selecting a limit IN WRITING less than the bodily injury liability coverage, but in no event less than the limits set forth in § 31-47-2(13)(i)(A), UNLESS THE NAMED INSURED IS PURCHASING ONLY THE MINIMUM COVERAGE required by compulsory insurance provisions of the general laws, IN WHICH CASE THE LIMIT CAN BE REDUCED TO ZERO, but only after signing an advisory notice approved by the director of business regulation concerning the hazard of uninsured and underinsured motorists.» THAT ZERO OPTION IS THE SINGLE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL SENTENCE ON THIS ROW FOR A RHODE ISLAND READER AND APPEARS IN NO OTHER JURISDICTION HERE. The coverage «shall also apply in the case of a responsible party whose liability insurance carrier was insolvent at the time of the accident OR BECAME INSOLVENT SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACCIDENT» — open-ended, where Vermont’s § 941(d) confines the insolvency to the crash or one year after it (§ 27-7-2.1(a)). The property-damage half is a rarity and is qualified twice: «property damage» means «injury to or destruction of the insured vehicle, INCLUDING ITS LOSS OF USE and any property, EXCLUDING BUSINESS PROPERTY, owned by the insured while contained in the insured vehicle», but «the named insured shall have the option to REJECT, IN WRITING, uninsured motorist coverage for loss resulting from damage to property. IF THE NAMED INSURED HAS COLLISION COVERAGE for property damage to his or her vehicle, THEN NO COVERAGE FOR UNINSURED MOTORIST PROPERTY DAMAGE SHALL BE REQUIRED» unless bought at the insured’s option — and after any selection or rejection «the insurer or any affiliated insurer shall be required to notify the policyholder, in any renewal» (§ 27-7-2.1(b)–(d)).

ON INSURER CONDUCT RHODE ISLAND IS THE MOST NUMERICALLY SPECIFIC JURISDICTION IN THIS DATASET, AND IT MIXES CALENDAR DAYS WITH BUSINESS DAYS DELIBERATELY, WHICH IS WHY EVERY UNIT IS QUOTED. Failing to respond to a claim within THIRTY days, «unless the insured shall agree to a longer period», is an unfair claims practice; so is failing to provide the forms needed to present a claim within TEN CALENDAR DAYS of a request; and so, separately, is «misleading a claimant as to the applicable statute of limitations» (§ 27-9.1-4(a)(13), (15), (16)). On the vehicle itself the insurer must perform an initial appraisal within THREE BUSINESS DAYS of a request from an auto body repair shop where the car is on the shop’s premises, and a supplemental appraisal within FOUR BUSINESS DAYS — «and if the insurer’s appraiser fails to inspect the damaged motor vehicle within the allotted number of business days … the insurer SHALL FORFEIT ITS RIGHT TO INSPECT THE DAMAGED VEHICLE PRIOR TO REPAIRS, and negotiations shall be limited to labor and the price of parts and shall not, unless objective evidence to the contrary is provided by the insurer, involve disputes as to the existence of damage or the chosen manner of repair» (§ 27-9.1-4(a)(26)). Two more consumer protections a reader can act on: a failure «to promptly schedule an appointment for an appraisal of a damaged vehicle with the auto body repair shop, at an agreed upon date and time, between normal business hours» is itself an unfair practice (a)(25); and «if the insured or claimant elects to have the vehicle repaired at a shop of his or her choice, THE INSURER SHALL NOT LIMIT OR DISCOUNT THE REASONABLE REPAIR COSTS BASED UPON THE CHARGES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED HAD THE VEHICLE BEEN REPAIRED BY THE INSURER’S CHOSEN SHOP(S)». THE GATE ON ALL OF IT IS PUBLISHED RATHER THAN OMITTED: the section makes each listed act an unfair claims practice only «if committed in violation of § 27-9.1-3», and § 27-9.1-3 was not read — so these are the statute’s prohibitions, whose trigger has not yet been verified against a primary text, and this row says so.

After a crash the reporting duty is a WRITTEN report and the window is by far the longest in this dataset: «The driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any person or in which the damage to property of any one person, INCLUDING HIMSELF OR HERSELF, in excess of one thousand dollars ($1000) is sustained, shall, WITHIN TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS after the accident, forward a written report of the accident to the division of motor vehicles», on the division’s forms (§ 31-26-6). Two features are Rhode Island’s own: the threshold measures the property of any one person EXPRESSLY INCLUDING THE DRIVER’S OWN, which makes it easier to cross than Idaho’s per-other-person measure, and there is NO IMMEDIATE-NOTICE LIMB IN THE SECTION AT ALL — twenty-one days against Vermont’s 72 hours, New Hampshire’s fifteen days and the immediate notice of Idaho, Montana and North Dakota. The section was last amended in 2002. Complaints go to the Department of Business Regulation’s Insurance Division, whose own paths are what is published here; the online insurance-complaint form it links to is NAIC-hosted at sbs.naic.org, which is disclosed and is not published as the regulator’s address. WHETHER INHERENT DIMINISHED VALUE IS RECOVERABLE IN RHODE ISLAND HAS NOT YET BEEN VERIFIED AGAINST A PRIMARY TEXT AND IS NOT STATED HERE, AND ONE TEMPTATION IS NAMED SO IT IS RESISTED: § 27-7-2.1(c)(2)’s inclusion of the insured vehicle’s «loss of use» is a DEFINITION INSIDE THE UNINSURED-MOTORIST COVERAGE, not a measure of recoverable damages in tort, and neither it nor the rule against discounting a repair bill to a preferred shop’s prices addresses the residual loss in market value of a repaired vehicle. No full-text search for the term was run, the Rhode Island Code of Regulations was not opened and no Rhode Island opinion was read.