Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1 (2026)

Uninsured motorist coverage

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) No policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for property damage caused by collision, bodily injury, or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless coverage is provided in or supplemental to the policy, for bodily injury or death in limits set forth in each policy, but in no instance less than the limits set forth in § 31-47-2(13)(i)(A) under provisions approved by the insurance commissioner, for the protection of persons insured under the policy who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles and hit-and-run motor vehicles because of property damage, bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting from that injury, sickness, or disease. 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 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.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), 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 the insured at his or her option chooses to purchase that coverage.

(c) For the purposes of this section:

(1) “Policy insuring against loss” means a policy that provides primary coverage for the insured motor vehicle; and

(2) “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.

(d) After the selection of limits by the named insured or the exercise of the right to reject that portion of the coverage that applies to property damage, the insurer or any affiliated insurer shall be required to notify the policyholder, in any renewal, reinstatement, substitute, amended, altered, modified, transfer, or replacement policy, as to the availability of that coverage or optional limits. The insured may, subject to the limitations expressed in this chapter, make a written request for higher limits, newly added coverage, or coverage more extensive than that provided on a prior policy.

(e) Property damage caused by collision shall be subject to a two hundred dollar ($200) deductible per claim unless otherwise agreed. Any claim submitted under the property damage portion of this section must include the name, address, and other means of identification to establish that the at-fault operator is without insurance. The rate for this coverage will be established as a percentage of the existing base collision insurance rate as utilized by the majority of companies, to be determined by the insurance commissioner.

(f) Whenever, through subrogation, an insurance company or its insurance producer collects a casualty loss from a third party, that company or insurance producer shall, from the funds collected, first pay to the insured the deductible portion of the casualty loss less the prorated share of subrogation expense and only after this retain any funds in excess of the deductible portion of the recovery.

(g) For the purposes of this section “uninsured motorist” shall include an underinsured motorist. An “underinsured motorist” is the owner or operator of a motor vehicle who carries automobile liability insurance with coverage in an amount less than the limits or damages that persons insured pursuant to this section are legally entitled to recover because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting from that injury, sickness, or disease.

(h) A person entitled to recover damages pursuant to this section shall not be required to make a claim against or bring an action against the uninsured or underinsured tortfeasor as a prerequisite to recover damages from the insurer providing coverage pursuant to this section. In the event that the person entitled to recover against an underinsured motorist recovers from the insurer providing coverage pursuant to this section, that insurer shall be entitled to subrogation rights against the underinsured motorist and his or her insurance carrier. Release of the tortfeasor with the consent of the company providing the underinsured coverage shall not extinguish or bar the claim of the insured against the underinsurance carrier regardless of whether the claim has been liquidated.

(i) Whenever an insured has paid two (2) or more separate premiums for uninsured motorists’ coverage in a single policy of insurance or under several policies with the same insurance company, the insured shall be permitted to collect up to the aggregate amount of coverage for all of the vehicles insured, regardless of any language in the policy to the contrary.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 115 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Employers' Fire Ins. v. Baker, 383 A.2d 1005 (R.I. 1978).
Employers' Fire Ins. v. Baker, 383 A.2d 1005 (R.I. 1978). · cites it 50× “1956 (1968 Reenactment) § 27-7-2.1 and further that the coverage issued by plaintiffs was concurrent with (that is, in addition to) and not excess insurance over the York policy limit.”
Lynch v. Spirit Rent-A-Car, Inc., 965 A.2d 417 (R.I. 2009). · cites it 14× “With respect to their first argument, defendants asserted that, in accordance with G.L.1956 § 27-7-2.1, Republic Industries lawfully reduced their UM coverage to zero.”
Ellis v. Rhode Island Pub. Transit Auth., 586 A.2d 1055 (R.I. 1991). · cites it 21× “1956 (1989 Reenactment) § 27-7-2.1, Rhode Island’s uninsured-motorist statute.”
Am. States Ins. Co. v. Joann LaFlam, 69 A.3d 831 (R.I. 2013). · cites it 17× “The Court of Appeals certified the following question to this Court: “In light of the UM/UIM statute[, G.L. 1956 § 27-7-2.1,] and Rhode Island public policy, would Rhode Island enforce the two provisions of the contractual limitations clause in this case?” For the reasons that…”
Ferreira v. Integon Nat'l Ins., 809 A.2d 1098 (R.I. 2002). · cites it 24× “1(a), or is the insurer required only to notify the insured of the existence of UM coverage, in accordance with subsection (d) of § 27-7-2.1? The plaintiff, Leno Ferreira, who was the added insured in this case, appealed a summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Integon…”
VanMarter v. Royal Indem. Co., 556 A.2d 41 (R.I. 1989). · cites it 15× “As originally enacted, G.L.1956 § 27-7-2.1 required insurance carriers to offer uninsured motorist coverage, but the insured could reject such coverage.”
Balian v. Allstate Ins. Co., 610 A.2d 546 (R.I. 1992). · cites it 19× “Balian argues that she is entitled to proceed, pursuant to statutory definition, to the underinsured coverage of her insurance policy with Allstate as the *551 trial justice characterized Aptt as an under-insured motorist under § 27-7-2.”
Amica Mut. Ins. v. Streicker, 583 A.2d 550 (R.I. 1990). · cites it 8× “1956 (1989 Reenactment) § 27-7-2.1. The trial justice determined that the Burkhardt vehicle was an “uninsured” vehicle under the Arnica policy and that Streicker was entitled to uninsured/under-insured-motorist benefits.”
McVicker v. Travelers Ins. Co., 785 A.2d 550 (R.I. 2001). · cites it 19× “The plaintiffs also asserted in their complaint that § 27-7-2.1, the uninsured motorist statute, “clearly intends to protect policyholders who are legally entitled to collect damages from both owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicle[s] and hit and run motor vehicles.”
Bibeault v. Hanover Ins., 417 A.2d 313 (R.I. 1980). · cites it 6× “1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 27-7-2.1 because his insurance provided a maximum coverage of $5,000 per person.”
Nationwide Mut. Ins. v. Viti, 850 A.2d 104 (R.I. 2004). · cites it 12× “1 provides in pertinent part: “(a) No policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for property damage caused by collision, bodily injury, or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle shall be…”
Gleason v. Merchants Mut. Ins., 589 F. Supp. 1474 (D.R.I. 1984). · cites it 12× “Alternatively, she maintains that if such is not the case, then the mandate of R.I.Gen.Laws § 27-7-2.1 (quoted post at n.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(0) — 2 cases
Balian v. Allstate Ins. Co., 610 A.2d 546 (R.I. 1992). “Balian argues that she is entitled to proceed, pursuant to statutory definition, to the underinsured coverage of her insurance policy with Allstate as the *551 trial justice characterized Aptt as an under-insured motorist under § 27-7-2.”
Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. v. Morris, 599 A.2d 1042 (R.I. 1991).
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(A) — 1 case
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(A)(1) — 1 case
Carlton v. Worcester Ins., 744 F. Supp. 395 (D.R.I. 1990).
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(A)(3) — 2 cases
Fama v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 694 A.2d 741 (R.I. 1997).
Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v. St. Angelo, 615 A.2d 1018 (R.I. 1992).
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(A)(l) — 1 case
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(B) — 10 cases
Balian v. Allstate Ins. Co., 610 A.2d 546 (R.I. 1992). “Balian argues that she is entitled to proceed, pursuant to statutory definition, to the underinsured coverage of her insurance policy with Allstate as the *551 trial justice characterized Aptt as an under-insured motorist under § 27-7-2.”
Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. v. Cantley, 615 A.2d 477 (R.I. 1992).
Altieri v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 697 A.2d 1104 (R.I. 1997).
Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. v. Morris, 599 A.2d 1042 (R.I. 1991).
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(B)(1) — 1 case
Amica Mut. Ins. v. Streicker, 583 A.2d 550 (R.I. 1990). “1956 (1989 Reenactment) § 27-7-2.1. The trial justice determined that the Burkhardt vehicle was an “uninsured” vehicle under the Arnica policy and that Streicker was entitled to uninsured/under-insured-motorist benefits.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(B)(2) — 5 cases
Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am. v. Cuddy, 658 A.2d 13 (R.I. 1995).
LeFranc v. Amica Mut. Ins., 594 A.2d 382 (R.I. 1991).
Manzo v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 666 A.2d 417 (R.I. 1995).
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Westerkamp, 603 A.2d 308 (R.I. 1992).
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Sullivan, 607 A.2d 879 (R.I. 1992).
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(B)(l) — 2 cases
Gerald R. Carlton, Etc. v. Worcester Ins. Co., 923 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1991).
Carlton v. Worcester Ins., 744 F. Supp. 395 (D.R.I. 1990).
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(C) — 7 cases
DiTata v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 542 A.2d 245 (R.I. 1988).
Finch v. Centennial Ins. Co., 650 A.2d 495 (R.I. 1994).
Balian v. Allstate Ins. Co., 610 A.2d 546 (R.I. 1992). “Balian argues that she is entitled to proceed, pursuant to statutory definition, to the underinsured coverage of her insurance policy with Allstate as the *551 trial justice characterized Aptt as an under-insured motorist under § 27-7-2.”
Baker v. Hanover Ins., 568 A.2d 1023 (R.I. 1990).
Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. v. Morris, 599 A.2d 1042 (R.I. 1991).
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(a) — 18 cases
Lynch v. Spirit Rent-A-Car, Inc., 965 A.2d 417 (R.I. 2009). “With respect to their first argument, defendants asserted that, in accordance with G.L.1956 § 27-7-2.1, Republic Industries lawfully reduced their UM coverage to zero.”
Ferreira v. Integon Nat'l Ins., 809 A.2d 1098 (R.I. 2002). “1(a), or is the insurer required only to notify the insured of the existence of UM coverage, in accordance with subsection (d) of § 27-7-2.1? The plaintiff, Leno Ferreira, who was the added insured in this case, appealed a summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Integon…”
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co v. Hatfield, 122 S.W.3d 36 (Ky. 2003).
Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. v. Barry, 892 A.2d 915 (R.I. 2006).
McVicker v. Travelers Ins. Co., 785 A.2d 550 (R.I. 2001). “The plaintiffs also asserted in their complaint that § 27-7-2.1, the uninsured motorist statute, “clearly intends to protect policyholders who are legally entitled to collect damages from both owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicle[s] and hit and run motor vehicles.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(b) — 1 case
McVicker v. Travelers Ins. Co., 785 A.2d 550 (R.I. 2001). “The plaintiffs also asserted in their complaint that § 27-7-2.1, the uninsured motorist statute, “clearly intends to protect policyholders who are legally entitled to collect damages from both owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicle[s] and hit and run motor vehicles.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(c) — 2 cases
Cardoso v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 659 A.2d 1097 (R.I. 1995).
Anderson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 635 A.2d 1194 (R.I. 1994).
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(c)(1) — 1 case
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(d) — 6 cases
Ferreira v. Integon Nat'l Ins., 809 A.2d 1098 (R.I. 2002). “1(a), or is the insurer required only to notify the insured of the existence of UM coverage, in accordance with subsection (d) of § 27-7-2.1? The plaintiff, Leno Ferreira, who was the added insured in this case, appealed a summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Integon…”
Porter v. Amica Mut. Ins., 789 F. Supp. 2d 284 (D.R.I. 2011).
Fama v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 694 A.2d 741 (R.I. 1997).
Roberge v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 112 F.4th 45 (1st Cir. 2024).
Carpenter v. Hartford Fire Ins., 990 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D.R.I. 2014).
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(e) — 2 cases
McVicker v. Travelers Ins. Co., 785 A.2d 550 (R.I. 2001). “The plaintiffs also asserted in their complaint that § 27-7-2.1, the uninsured motorist statute, “clearly intends to protect policyholders who are legally entitled to collect damages from both owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicle[s] and hit and run motor vehicles.”
Hardguittini v. City of Providence, 837 A.2d 704 (R.I. 2003).
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(g) — 9 cases
Am. States Ins. Co. v. Joann LaFlam, 69 A.3d 831 (R.I. 2013). “The Court of Appeals certified the following question to this Court: “In light of the UM/UIM statute[, G.L. 1956 § 27-7-2.1,] and Rhode Island public policy, would Rhode Island enforce the two provisions of the contractual limitations clause in this case?” For the reasons that…”
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Kaya, 947 A.2d 869 (R.I. 2008).
Shepard v. Harleysville Worcester Ins., 944 A.2d 167 (R.I. 2008).
Archambault v. Fed. Ins., 690 A.2d 1348 (R.I. 1997).
Nationwide Mut. Ins. v. Viti, 850 A.2d 104 (R.I. 2004). “1 provides in pertinent part: “(a) No policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for property damage caused by collision, bodily injury, or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle shall be…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(h) — 8 cases
Calise v. Curtin, 900 A.2d 1164 (R.I. 2006).
Canavan v. Lovett, Schefrin & Harnett, 862 A.2d 778 (R.I. 2004).
Am. States Ins. Co. v. Joann LaFlam, 69 A.3d 831 (R.I. 2013). “The Court of Appeals certified the following question to this Court: “In light of the UM/UIM statute[, G.L. 1956 § 27-7-2.1,] and Rhode Island public policy, would Rhode Island enforce the two provisions of the contractual limitations clause in this case?” For the reasons that…”
Fraioli v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins., 748 A.2d 273 (R.I. 2000).
Leonard v. McDowell, 824 A.2d 1266 (R.I. 2003).
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.1(i) — 4 cases
Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. James S. Dias, 151 A.3d 308 (R.I. 2017).
Cardoso v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 659 A.2d 1097 (R.I. 1995).
Bazar v. Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. of Am., 657 A.2d 1070 (R.I. 1995).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.