Loss Of Consortium in Personal Injury & Auto Accident Cases & Timely Filing in Rhode Island

In Desjarlis v. USAA. Co. 824A.2D 1272 (R.I. 2003 , the husband who was injured in an auto accident, settled with the tortfeasor's (person who commits a wrongful act) insurance company for the policy limits  (medical), and his uninsured motorist carrier (defendant) consented to this settlement. The wife did not notify the tortfeasor, his insurance company, or the defendant uninsured motorist carrier of her loss of consortium (inability of one's spouse to have normal marital relations) and society claims until after her husband had settled his claim against the tortfeasor and arbitrated his uninsured motorist claim against the insurer, at which point she filed an action on behalf of herself and her minor children against the defendant-insurer, seeking uninsured benefits, alleging loss of consortium and society.

In Desjarlais II, (the Court) held that the spouse or children of an impaired party (i.e.. the deprived parties) must join their consortium claims with the claim of the impaired party before the impaired party settles his claim, obtains an arbitration award, or before a judgement adjudicating his claim becomes final, whichever event first occurs.

On the facts of the instant case, the court reasoned that the wife sat idly by, with knowledge of her husband's claim, while he was settling and arbitrating them. Since she made no showing that joinder to her husband's claims was not feasible. Desjarlais II ruled that the trial court properly granted summary judgement to the defendant-insurer.

Article about the Ronald J. Resmini Law Offices in RWU Law Magazine

Please check out an article that appeared in the RWU Law Magazine (Roger Williams University School of Law Magazine) about the Ronald J. Resmini Law Offices by Denise Perreault.  I've copied the article below, but to view the full article, please click on the link I've provided.

http://law.rwu.edu/sites/law/files/flipbooks/fall2012/index.html#/26/

All in the Family
To Practice or Not to Practice?  With a Loved One, it's all Relative.

Attorney Ronald J. Resmini has three sons, and each was ushered into the world with a ritual that perhaps only another lawyer could fully appreciate.
Thirty-two years ago, the proud dad, who heads his own law firm in Providence, had the name of each son - R. Jason, Adam J. and Andrew O. Resmini - painted on the doors of three separate offices shortly after each baby was born, establishing actual offices for what were then bawling infants.
"Within six months of their births, their names were on the doors," the elder Resmini says.  "They're still there."
Was it an expression of supreme optimism?  Or utter foolishness?  "It was kind of wishful thinking," Resmini admits.  But it worked.  Resmini urged his three sons to earn law degrees because he knew how useful such a degree can be, whether one actually practices the law or not.  Today the three sons work with their father in a firm where four out of the five practicing attorneys are Resminis.
"I love having the kids around," Resmini says today.  "No matter how much we get on each other's nerves, there's nothing like it."
Working together with family members in the law - whether as practicing attorneys, law school instructors and/or administrators - presents exceptional challenges, putting happiness both at home and at work in jeopardy.  It is a course of action that some say is fraught with peril - and others say is nothing short of ideal.

Attorney Ronald J. Resmini
Ronald J. Resmini Law Offices LTD
155 South Main Street, Suite 400
Providence, RI  02903

P:  (401) 751-8855

Watch Our Latest Videos on Our YouTube Channel
Like Us on Facebook
Follow Us on Twitter

Negligence & Requirement of Damages: Rhode Island Law Updates By Attorney Ronald J. Resmini

In this update of Rhode Island Practice Tort Law and Personal Injury Practice (Vol. 1), Chapter 2 , Negligence, Section 82, I update my previous publication from 1990.

*82. The Requirement of Damages

The possibility of contracting cancer resulting from mere exposure to a carcinogen (see asbestos/mesothelioma), although potentially increasing one's risk of developing cancer, is too tenuous to be a viable cause of action. (Kelley v. Cowessett Hills Assocciates, 768 A2d 425 (RI 2000). Thus, in cases alleging negligent exposure to asbestos, a plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, establish a prima facie case of negligence absent any physical manifestation of asbestos-related illness or disease. Id 

The Ronald J Resmini Law Offices in Providence and Seekonk www.resminilawoffices.com http://www.resminilawoffices.com, Massachusetts, has represented clients who were unknowingly exposed to asbestos in the workplace. If you feel that this may apply to you, please give us a call for a no-obligation, initial consultation.