## Facts

- Beverly A. Taft, a ninth-grade student, accepted a ride from Eric A. Cerwonka in a 1965 Buick Skylark owned by Richard A. Miller.
- Shortly after leaving a neighborhood store in Warwick, Rhode Island, Cerwonka lost control; the car struck a guy wire and then a utility pole.
- Beverly, seated in the front passenger seat, died from injuries sustained in the collision.
- Cerwonka and Miller had no liability insurance at the time of the accident.
- Beverly’s parents, Earl W. Taft and Marian F. Taft, held an Allstate automobile policy with uninsured-motorist (UM) coverage.
- The Tafts insured two automobiles under the single Allstate policy and paid separate UM premiums for each vehicle.
- The Tafts sued Cerwonka and Miller for wrongful death and sued Allstate under the UM provisions; the actions were consolidated.
- Before trial, the court granted partial summary judgment permitting the Tafts to stack UM coverages.
- A jury returned a $33,000 verdict; the trial court entered judgment against Allstate for $20,000, reflecting stacked UM limits of $10,000 per insured vehicle.

## Issues

1. Whether insureds may stack UM coverage limits for two vehicles insured under one policy when separate UM premiums were paid.
2. Whether the policy limited Allstate’s UM liability to a single $10,000 per-person limit, requiring a directed verdict on that cap.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying a new trial on damages based on claimed insufficiency or speculation in proof of future lost earnings.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the judgment.
- The Tafts were entitled to stack UM coverages, making Allstate’s aggregate UM liability $20,000.
- The trial court properly denied Allstate’s directed-verdict request premised on a $10,000 cap.
- The trial court properly denied Allstate’s motion for a new trial on damages because the verdict was supported by the evidence and the trial justice did not abuse discretion.

## Legal Principles

- When an insured pays separate premiums for UM coverage on multiple vehicles, UM limits may be aggregated unless the policy clearly and unambiguously bars stacking; ambiguities are construed in favor of coverage and consistent with the insured’s reasonable expectations.
- An insurer cannot rely on a limits-of-liability clause to impose a single UM limit where the policy structure and premium charges reasonably indicate separate UM protection for each insured vehicle.
- In a wrongful-death action, a jury may award future lost earnings based on evidence such as the decedent’s age, health, and circumstances; expert testimony is not invariably required, and a denial of a new trial will be upheld absent abuse of discretion or indicia of passion or prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Tafts could stack uninsured-motorist limits for two insured vehicles because they paid separate UM premiums and the policy did not unambiguously prohibit aggregation, and it affirmed the trial court’s refusal to disturb the damages award.


Taft v. Cerwonka, 433 A.2d 215 (R.I. 1981)