Litigation Trends

Subscribe to Litigation Trends

The overwhelming majority of courts (including all seven federal circuits that considered the issue) have rejected the so-called “innovator liability” doctrine.[1]  In 2017, however, the California Supreme Court in T.H. v. Novartis Pharm. Corp.[2] unanimously recognized the doctrine holding that brand-name prescription drug manufacturers owe a duty to warn to consumers who use generic drugs.[3]  In March of 2018, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) considered the issue, and took a middle ground.  Specifically, in Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc.,[4] the SJC held that plaintiffs who ingest the generic form of a drug may bring failure to warn claims against the brand-name manufacturer of the drug if the brand-name defendant acted recklessly by “intentionally fail[ing] to update the label on its drug while knowing or having reason to know of an unreasonable risk of death or grave bodily injury associated with its use.”[5]  In so doing, the SJC reasoned that a plaintiff is, in fact, injured by a brand-name product’s label despite never having used said product because statutes require identical labeling of the generically manufactured version.[6]

 

The Facts

 

In 2010, a physician prescribed Finasteride, the generic version of the brand name drug Proscar, to treat Rafferty’s enlarged prostate.[7]  Rafferty experienced anticipated temporary side effects from the drug, causing him to stop taking the medication.[8]  Rafferty, however, continued to experience these side effects and his physician informed him that they could actually continue “indefinitely.”[9]  The potential lifelong side effects of this drug were not disclosed within the brand-name manufacturer’s nor the mirrored generic manufacturer’s warning label.[10]  Rafferty presented evidence that the brand-name manufacturer became aware of these potential long-term side effects by 2008, when it updated Proscar’s warning label in select European markets to include this risk.[11]

 

Rafferty filed suit against the brand-name manufacturer in 2013, asserting a claim of negligence for, inter alia, failure to warn and for violation of the Commonwealth’s Consumer Protection Statute, G.L. c. 93A.[12]  The Superior Court dismissed Rafferty’s claims, “ruling that [the brand-name defendant] owed no duty of care to [him].”[13]  The SJC took over the case by its own motion from the Appeals Court.[14]

 

The SJC Weighs In

 

Traditionally, Massachusetts has not recognized liability for products manufactured by others.[15]  However, the SJC noted that The Restatement (Third) of Torts allows a modification to this general rule in exceptional cases.[16] The SJC considered innovator liability to require such a modification given the certainty that a user of a generic drug will rely on the label fashioned by the brand-name manufacturer and as state law shields failure to warn claims from generic manufacturers, leaving plaintiffs without recourse for their injuries.[17] However, the SJC also recognized that imposing innovator liability could impact the public policy of encouraging innovation in the drug market and a potential increase in drug pricing.[18]

 

Balancing these competing interests, the court held that, “a brand-name manufacturer that controls the contents of the label on a generic drug owes a duty to consumers of that generic drug not to act in reckless disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or grave bodily injury.”[19]  As an added protection to the manufacturers, it will be the trial judge’s responsibility to determine whether an injury constitutes an “unreasonable risk of death or grave bodily injuries.”[20]  The court went on to define recklessness as an act performed while knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable person to realize that his or her conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another and that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent.[21] In order to meet this threshold with regard to failure to act, there must be “an intentional or unreasonable disregard of a risk that presents a high degree of probability that substantial harm will result.”[22]

 

The court then vacated the dismissals and remanded the case to Superior Court where the plaintiff would be granted leave to amend his complaint should he believe his claims meet the newfound threshold.[23]

 

National Scope

 

In August of 2017, the United States District Court – District of Massachusetts held in In re Zofran[24] that a brand-name manufacturer is not liable for a generic version’s failure to warn claim spawning from an injury caused by the use of the generic.[25]  Judge Dennis F. Saylor IV articulated this point by emphasizing the consistency of the Circuit Courts’ decisions and citing to a Sixth Circuit multi-district litigation holding “affirming the dismissal of claims against brand-name manufacturers under the laws of 22 states.”[26]  Notwithstanding this majority view, in December of 2017, the Supreme Court of California held that a brand-manufacturer is liable for a failure to warn claim arising from “risks about which it knew of reasonably should have known, regardless of whether the consumer is prescribed the brand-name drug or its generic ‘bioequivalent.’”[27]  Here, the SJC has offered a compromise to the majority and minority viewpoints by adopting a recklessness standard, which is a higher threshold than the minority view, while still maintaining failure to warn liability against the brand-name manufacturer, in contrast with the majority.

 

The court’s concern that redress be available to those who ingest generic drugs by establishing liability to the controlling brand-name manufacturer carried the day.  Our hope is that innovators will continue to advance modern pharmaceutical products despite their increased potential for liability. We will be watching this space for further developments.

 

 

[1] In re Zofran (Ondansetron) Products Liability Litigation, 261 F.Supp.3d 62 (D. Mass. 2017) (citing In re Darvocet, Darvon, and Propoxyphene Products Liability Litigation, 756 F.3d 917, 938-939 (6th Cir. 2014)).

[2] 407 P.3d 18, 29 (Cal. 2017).

[3] Id. at 47.

[4] Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc. & Sidney Rubenstein, No. SJC–12347 (Mass. Mar. 16, 2018).

[5] Id. at 2-3.

[6]Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. SJC–12347 at 3-4. The statutory and regulatory constructs pertaining to drug labeling are quite complicated.  Relevant to the matter considered by the SJC, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, informally known as the “Hatch-Waxman Act” requires the “manufacturer of a generic drug [to] provide its users with a warning label that is identical to the label of the brand-name counterpart.”  Id. at 4.  In accordance with the “federal duty of ‘sameness’” the two opportunities to alter a generic manufacturers preexisting warning are to: (1) update their label in response to their brand-name counterpart’s update; and (2) per specific FDA instruction. Id. at 6-7 (citing PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604, 613-616 (2011)).  These federal laws makes it almost impossible for generic manufacturers to follow Massachusetts labeling laws because they do not have the unilateral power to act. See id.

[7] Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. SJC–12347 at 8.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. SJC–12347 at 8-9.

[11] Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. SJC–12347 at 9.

[12] Id. Plaintiff also asserted a G.L. c.93A § 9 Consumer Protection Act claim and a negligent failure to obtain informed consent action against his physician.

[13] Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. SJC–12347 at 10; Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc. & Sidney Rubenstein, No. 2013–04459, 4 (Mass. Super. May 23, 2013) (emphasizing that because “Rafferty did not ingest the drug that Merck manufactured, Merck owes Rafferty no duty of care”).

[14] Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. SJC–12347 at 11.

[15] See e.g. Mathers v. Midland-Ross Corp., 403 Mass. 688, 691 (Mass. 1989); Mitchell v. Sky Climber, Inc., 396 Mass. 629, 631 (Mass. 1986).

[16] Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. SJC–12347 at 16.

[17] Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. SJC–12347 at 17. This was especially so given generic products command approximately ninety percent of the market. Id.

[18] Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. SJC–12347 at 20-22.

[19] Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. SJC–12347 at 29.

[20] Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. SJC–12347 at 30.

[21] See Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. SJC–12347 at 29 (citing Boyd v. National R.R. Passenger Corp, 446 Mass. 540, 546 (Mass. 2006); Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 500, 587 (1965)).

[22] Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. SJC–12347 at 30.

[23] Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. SJC–12347 at 36. Additionally, Rafferty’s G.L. c. 93A § 9 claim was vacated because it did not satisfy the “any trade or commerce” provision, which requires that the unfair or deceptive practice is directly related to the advertising, selling, or trade of a Merck product.  Id. at 38.  Thus, because Rafferty used Finasteride, as opposed to Proscar, the claim is beyond the scope of G.L. c. 93A § 9.  Id. at 38-39

[24] 261 F.Supp.3d 62 (D. Mass. 2017). A multi-district litigation matter regarding side effects not purported within the label of Zofran and in-turn not purported on the label of the generic version, Ondansetron.

[25] In re Zofran, 261 F.Supp.3d at 64-65.

[26] In re Zofran, 261 F.Supp.3d at 71-72 (citing In re Darvocet, Darvon, and Propoxyphene Products Liability Litigation, 756 F.3d at 938-939.

[27] T.H. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 407 P.3d at 29 (citing Dolin v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 62 F.Supp.3d 705 (N.D. Ill. 2014); Chatman v. Pfizer, Inc., 960 F.Supp.2d 641, 654 (S.D. Miss. 2013); Kellogg v. Wyeth, Inc., 762 F.Supp.2d 694, 704 (D. Vt. 2010); Wyeth, Inc. v. Weeks, 159 So.3d 649 (Ala. 2014)). See also Conte v. Wyeth, Inc., 168 Cal.App.4th 89 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).

On April 16, 2018, a Rhode Island court addressed for the first time whether an entity owes a duty of care to protect non-employees from exposure to the asbestos-tainted work clothes of the entity’s employee.  In a decision denying the defendant Crane Co.’s motion for summary judgment in the matter of Carolyn Nichols, as Executrix of the Estate of Iva Pearl Jones, et al. v. Allis Chalmers Product Liability Trust, et al., C.A. No. PC-2008-1134, Judge Sarah Taft-Carter held that while the existence of such a duty is determined on a case-by-case basis, the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to establish that Crane Co. had a duty to protect against such “secondary” or “take-home” exposure.  The decision is significant in that the Court demonstrated a willingness to impose such a broad duty upon an employer if certain factors are met through the plaintiff’s evidence.

 

In the Jones matter, the plaintiffs alleged that the decedent, Iva Pearl Jones (“Ms. Jones”) was exposed to asbestos from the clothing of her brother-in-law, Stanley Nichols (“Mr. Nichols”) while Mr. Nichols was employed by Crane Co. from 1979 to 1980 and resided in the same home as Ms. Jones and other family members.  The testimony also established that Ms. Jones “always” did the laundry, including Mr. Nichols’ work clothes.  Ms. Jones was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2005 and passed away in 2007.  The plaintiffs alleged that Crane Co. failed to take adequate precautions to prevent asbestos fibers from leaving the work site and failed to warn employees of a foreseeable risk of take-home exposures to their cohabitants. Following discovery, Crane Co. moved for summary judgment on all counts asserting that it had no duty of care to Ms. Jones, its employee’s sister-in-law, and that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the alleged exposure to asbestos from Mr. Nichols’ clothing caused Ms. Jones’ disease.

 

The Court, noting that an employer’s duty to protect against “take-home” exposures is an issue of first impression in Rhode Island, recognized the division of existing authority in other jurisdictions that have addressed the issue in NY, MD, GA, TN, NJ, IL, and ND. The Court held that it need not find a “special relationship” between Crane Co. and Ms. Jones to impose a duty because the plaintiffs allegations were based upon Crane Co.’s own alleged misfeasance in utilizing asbestos-containing products and not on an alleged failure of Crane Co. to protect against the actions of a third-party tortfeasor.  Instead, the Court held that under Rhode Island law, the existence of a duty of care is determined on a case-by-case basis considering the following factors: (1) the foreseeability of the harm; (2) the degree of certainty of injury; (3) the closeness of connection between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury; (4) the policy of preventing future harm; (5) the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community in imposing a legal duty; and (6) the relationship between the parties.

 

After considering the above-factors, the Court concluded that Crane Co. owed a duty of care to Ms. Jones. First, the Court found that it was foreseeable to Crane Co. that asbestos fibers could be transmitted on an employee’s clothing and posed a risk to individuals residing with the employee, based on the 1972 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation “emphasiz[ing] the importance of preventing asbestos from leaving the worksite on employees’ clothes” and advising employers of measures to prevent such risks including providing employees with protective clothing. (citing Standard for Exposure to Asbestos Dust, 37 Fed. Reg. 110, 11318 (June 7, 1972), amending 29 C.F.R. § 1910, et seq.).  Second, the Court noted that the degree of certainty of injury, namely Ms. Jones’ diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma, was not contested.  Third, with regard to the closeness of the connection between Crane Co.’s conduct and the alleged injury, the Court listed several measures Crane Co. could have taken to prevent take-home exposure, such as providing uniforms, on-site showers and laundry services, and/or requiring employees to change their clothes before leaving the facility. Fourth, the Court  acknowledged that asbestos-related illnesses have a long latency period and therefore, the fact that Ms. Jones’ was not diagnosed until 25 years after the alleged exposures did not reduce the closeness of the connection.  Fifth, as to public policy considerations and the burden of imposing a legal duty on employers under the circumstances presented, the Court commented that asbestos poses a danger to public health and cumulative exposures can cause mesothelioma.  The Court rejected Crane Co.’s assertion that imposing a duty would subject it limitless liability and claims from “a seemingly immeasurable amount of people,” emphasizing that Rhode Island courts determine whether a duty exists on a case-by-case basis.  Moreover, it observed that measures Crane Co. could have undertaken to prevent household exposures were required by OSHA and not burdensome or onerous. Finally, the Court rejected Crane Co.’s argument that Ms. Jones’ relationship with Crane Co., as the sister-in-law of Crane Co.’s employee and household member, was too attenuated to support a duty.  The Court found that the plaintiffs had provided evidence of long-standing cohabitation between Ms. Jones and Mr. Nichols and that they acted as a single household unit during the relevant times with Ms. Jones regularly undertaking laundry duties for the household.

 

The Court further concluded that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to prevail against Crane Co.’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of causation.  Crane Co. argued that plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient to meet the “frequency, regularity, proximity” test set forth in Sweredoski v. Alfa Laval, Inc., No. PC 2011-1544, 2013 WL 3010419, *2 (R.I. Super. June 13, 2013) (Gibney, P.J.).  The Court stated, the “issue of proximate causation is usually a question for the trier of fact that cannot be determined on summary judgment” and found that the plaintiffs had provided sufficient evidence of product identification, regular and frequent use, and proximate exposure to asbestos.  Specifically, Mr. Nichols had testified that he regularly worked closely with asbestos-containing insulation for approximately seven months.  He further testified that Ms. Jones “always” laundered his work clothes, and that there was visible dust in the air when she performed this task.  The plaintiffs’ pathology expert, Dr. James A. Strauchen, also opined that Ms. Jones’ cumulative exposure to asbestos caused her mesothelioma.  The Court held that this evidence satisfied the frequency, regularity, proximity test and was sufficient for a jury to conclude that exposure to asbestos from Mr. Nichols’ clothing was a substantial factor in causing of Ms. Jones’ disease.

 

Judge Taft-Carter’s decision denying Crane Co.’s motion for summary judgment is notable as the first instance in which a Rhode Island court has addressed the scope of duty an employer owes for “secondary” or “take-home” exposures.  While the decision demonstrates a willingness of the Court to extend an employer’s duty to household members of employees that demonstrate exposure to asbestos at a worksite that is controlled by the employer, the Court conducted  a multi-factor analysis that it stated it would apply going forward on a case-by-case basis.

A March 22, 2018, denial of a defendant’s summary judgment motion in the New York City Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL) signals a drastic lowering of the product identification standards in that venue (and a possible strategic adjustment necessary in future defendants litigating there).

 

In Trumbull v. Adience, Inc., a former brewer sued Stavo Industries (“Stavo”) as a manufacturer of asbestos-containing products to which the plaintiff was allegedly exposed.  Stavo made, among other products, filters used in breweries. The plaintiff listed Stavo in his interrogatory responses, but not during his deposition testimony.  At his deposition, the plaintiff recalled exposure to filters generally, but only named one specific manufacturer—Cellulo.  However, the plaintiff also referred back, on the record, to his interrogatory responses for the list of filter brands that he supposedly encountered.

 

From Stavo’s perspective, the plaintiff’s general interrogatory mention of Stavo and reference back to those interrogatories during the deposition failed the requirement for product identification. Stavo moved for summary judgment.  Justice Manuel Mendez denied Stavo’s motion, and ruled that a reference back to the interrogatory responses during his deposition did “sufficiently identify” Stavo filters as an exposure source.  The Court found that Stavo’s liability could be inferred from the plaintiff’s testimony that he worked near filters being removed and replaced, considered with Stavo marketing materials from the time at issue claiming widespread usage of Stavo products in the brewing industry.  For the Court, this provided enough evidence to survive summary judgment.

 

After this decision, the bar for product identification in the NYCAL appears dangerously low.  This standard encourages plaintiffs to make blanket references to their vague interrogatory responses in depositions where actual recollection is impossible. It also forces prudent defendants to cross-examine during depositions with or without a specific mention of the defendant’s product occurring. If the NYCAL proceeds with this standard, the number of identifications stands to increase.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. Federal circuits are currently split on whether discrimination based on sexual orientation falls within the scope of discrimination based on sex (and therefore within the scope of Title VII’s prohibition). On February 26, 2018, the en banc Second Circuit Court of Appeals found in Zarda v. Altitude Express that Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination based on sex does in fact cover discrimination based on sexual orientation, overturning its own precedent holding from almost twenty years prior. This result signals increased viability for challenges advocating a broader interpretation of Title VII to remedy sexual orientation discrimination, as well as a potential pushback by the Jeff Sessions-helmed Justice Department as these challenges arise.

 

Zarda involved a skydiving instructor (Zarda) who alleged that his employer (Altitude Express) fired him in response to a customer telling them of his sexual orientation. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of Altitude Express on Zarda’s claim, finding that Title VII failed to cover sexual orientation discrimination, and that Zarda failed to establish the type of gender-stereotyping claim covered by the act. The District Court considered itself bound by the Second Circuit’s 17-year-old decision in Simonton v. Runyon, and held that, absent an en banc review by the Second Circuit reversing Simonton, Second Circuit precedent required dismissal. Zarda appealed the summary judgment to the Second Circuit, which granted an en banc review. Writing the majority opinion, Judge Robert Katzmann wrote in the majority opinion that sexual orientation discrimination necessarily involves sex discrimination, as it means discrimination against someone based on their own sex in relation to the sex of those to whom they are sexually attracted. Katzmann noted that although Congress had not sought to address sexual orientation discrimination in Title VII, laws like Title VII “often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils,” which in this case included sexual orientation discrimination. The Second Circuit thus reversed Simonson, vacated the summary judgment, and remanded the Title VII claim to the District Court.

 

By allowing such a claim to proceed under Title VII, the Second Circuit joined the Seventh Circuit, which found last April that Title VII covers sexual orientation discrimination in its decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana. Hively concerned an adjunct professor who alleged that her employer passed her up for full employment because she was openly gay. Hively argued that she faced discriminated for failing to conform to female stereotypes, and because she publicly identified as a lesbian. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the summary judgment in favor of her employer. It found that “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination” and that “a person who alleges that she experienced employment discrimination on the basis of her sexual orientation has put forth a case of sex discrimination for Title VII purposes.” According to the Seventh Circuit, Title VII encompassed both her gender non-conformity and sexual orientation discrimination allegations.

 

The Eleventh Circuit held otherwise in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, decided on March 10, 2017. The case involved a male-identifying security hospital security guard (Evans) allegedly dismissed from employment for failing to present as a woman. Like the plaintiff in Hively, Evans argued that she suffered discrimination due to her gender non-conformity, which she argued fell within the scope of Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination. The Eleventh Circuit agreed that Title VII protected against this type of discrimination, but found that she failed to make a prima facie showing of it. The Eleventh Circuit distinguished discrimination based on gender non-conformity from discrimination based on sexual orientation, and found that Title VII did not address the latter.

 

In Franchina v. City of Providence, decided on January 25, 2018, the First Circuit heard the city’s appeal of a verdict and judgment against it for a female firefighter’s Title VII claim that her employer provided her with a hostile workplace, where she suffered discrimination as both a woman and a lesbian. She proceeded under a “sex-plus” theory, or a gender discrimination claim alleging that an employer classifies employees based on their sex “plus” another characteristic (in this case, sexual orientation). The First Circuit held in denying the city’s challenge that the plaintiff’s claim of sexual orientation discrimination, although not technically redressable under Title VII, did not cause her meritorious sex discrimination claim to fail. In a jurisdiction following Zarda’s reasoning, this “sex-plus” heuristic becomes less meaningful or necessary for the plaintiffs to resort to, where sexual orientation itself becomes a protectable distinction. The difference between two jurisdiction’s analyses in cases like Franchina underscores the stakes in the national push for Circuit reconsideration of narrow judicial applications of Title VII.

 

After these cases, a pronounced Circuit split exists on the scope of Title VII’s coverage. On December 11, 2017, the Supreme Court refused certiorari for the plaintiff’s appeal in Evans, but more appeals to the Court’s jurisdiction on this issue appear imminent. The Second Circuit’s reversal appears to increase the impetus for the Supreme Court to address this question. In the meantime, state legislatures draft their own provisions aimed at remedying the type of discrimination typified by these suits.

In a recent decision, the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled that when an arbitration award exceeds the insurance policy limits, the Superior Court cannot consider the policy limits, or the insurance policy itself, in a motion to modify the award, unless the insurance company asserted a policy limit defense at the arbitration and provided a copy of the policy to the arbitrator.

 

In Lemerise v. Commerce Ins. Co., the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that trial courts may not supplement the review of a motion to modify an arbitration award pursuant to R.I. General Laws Section 10-3-14 with testimony, other evidence, and even arguments, if those items were not raised during the arbitration.  137 A.3d 692 (R.I. 2016).  This new precedent provides instructions to the trial court when reviewing motions to modify arbitration awards.  Courts are now forbidden to review evidence and arguments that were not presented or raised during the arbitration proceedings, and have been instructed to confirm arbitration awards unless the narrow exceptions outlined in Section 10-3-14 apply.

 

The underlying matter in Lemerise involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Joseph Lemerise, and the defendant, the Commerce Insurance Company.  In August 2011, Mr. Lemerise was struck by an uninsured motorist while crossing a street in Newport, Rhode Island.  Lemerise, 137 A.3d at 697.  Following the accident, Mr. Lemerise filed a claim for coverage under his automobile insurance policy through Commerce.  Id.  The parties unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate appropriate compensation for Mr. Lemerise’s injuries and a suit was subsequently filed in the Newport County Superior Court.  Id.  After filing the suit, the parties agreed to participate in arbitration pursuant to the terms of Mr. Lemerise’s uninsured motorist policy.  Id. at 705.  The arbitrator sought to determine the extent of Mr. Lemerise’s injuries and award sufficient compensation.  Id. at 698.  The arbitrator assessed Mr. Lemerise’s injuries at $150,000 and added prejudgment interest of $47,550, which brought the total award to $197,550.  Id. This total was well above the policy limit of $100,000.  Id.

 

At the conclusion of the arbitration, Mr. Lemerise moved in the superior court to confirm the arbitration award, and Commerce filed a motion seeking modification.  Id. at 698.  While reviewing the motions, the superior court supplemented its review of the issues at hand with a copy of Mr. Lemerise’s insurance policy, as well as testimony from the arbitrator.  Id.  The superior court justice granted Commerce’s motion to modify the award to conform with the insurance policy limit of $100,000.  Id. at 699.  The justice stated that he would not “allow [Mr. Lemerise] to take advantage of some technicality to get more than he bargained for in this case.”  Id.  Mr. Lemerise appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, seeking a reversal of the superior court’s holding and a confirmation of the initial arbitration award.  Id.

 

The sole issue presented before the Supreme Court was whether the trial justice erred in granting the motion to modify the award, when, after supplementing the record with the admission of the insurance policy and the testimony of the arbitrator, he reduced the award to conform to the policy limit of $100,000.  Id. at 700.  Upon review of the lower court’s holding, the Rhode Island Supreme Court expressed concern that litigants might sidestep the binding effect of arbitration awards by moving for modification of the awards.  Id. at 699.  The Court stated that “[p]ublic policy favors the finality of arbitration awards, and such awards enjoy a presumption of finality.” Id.  The Supreme Court further stated that courts reviewing a motion to confirm an arbitration award must limit the scope of their review to the arbitration record.  Id. at 700.

 

In Lemerise, the Court determined that Commerce effectively waived certain defense arguments regarding awards in excess of the insurance policy limits by not raising those defenses in the arbitration proceedings.  Id. at 704.  Particularly, the Court concluded that Commerce waived a policy limit defense by failing to submit a copy of Mr. Lemerise’s insurance policy during the arbitration proceedings.  Id.  In addition, the Court determined that the arbitrator did not err by awarding prejudgment interest.  Id. 700-04. The Court vacated the superior court’s order and remanded the case to the superior court with instructions to confirm the arbitrator’s award of $197,550.  Id. at 704-05.

 

In conclusion, the Rhode Island Supreme Court made clear that a trial court considering a motion to modify an arbitration award pursuant to section 10-3-14 may not expand its review beyond the arbitration record.  Therefore, when an insurance policy limit may be a defense, it is imperative that such arguments, and any supporting evidence, are introduced at the arbitration hearing; otherwise there is no remedy for arbitration awards in excess of the policy.