R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.2 (2026)

Interest on judgment — Payment by insurer

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In any civil action in which the defendant is covered by liability insurance and in which the plaintiff makes a written offer to the defendant’s insurer to settle the action in an amount equal to or less than the coverage limits on the liability policy in force at the time the action accrues, and the offer is rejected by the defendant’s insurer, then the defendant’s insurer shall be liable for all interest due on the judgment entered by the court even if the payment of the judgment and interest totals a sum in excess of the policy coverage limitation. This written offer shall be presumed to have been rejected if the insurer does not respond in writing within a period of thirty (30) days.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2022 · leading case: DeMarco v. Travelers Ins. Co., 26 A.3d 585 (R.I. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
DeMarco v. Travelers Ins. Co., 26 A.3d 585 (R.I. 2011). · cites it 48× “mplaint contained the following six counts: count one, demanding a declaratory judgment pursuant to Asermely ordering Travelers to pay "the entire verdict/judgment amount" from the personal injury litigation above and beyond the $1 million policy limits, plus all accrued…”
Wayne DeMarco v. Travelers Ins. Co., 102 A.3d 616 (R.I. 2014). · cites it 53× “G.L. § 27-7-2.2 and to Determine the Operative Effect of the Judgment Satisfied Order in These Proceeding [sic] After Remand.”
Skaling v. Aetna Ins., 742 A.2d 282 (R.I. 1999). · cites it 11× “1956 § 9-21-10 and G.L.1956 § 27-7-2.2, and that such interest should be calculated on the entire $1,174,500 awarded by the jury.”
Armacost v. Amica Mut. Ins., 821 F. Supp. 75 (D.R.I. 1993). · cites it 42× “G.L. § 27-7-2.2 to pay interest above and beyond that contractual liability, based on Arnica’s rejection of plaintiffs pretrial settlement offer.”
Asermely v. Allstate Ins. Ins. Co., 728 A.2d 461 (R.I. 1999). · cites it 9× “Count 1 claimed entitlement to the interest in excess of the policy limits pursuant to G.L.1956 § 27-7-2.2; 3 count 2 alleged that defendant breached its duty to exercise good faith in the handling of plaintiffs claim; count 3 sought damages for defendant’s alleged refusal to…”
Johnson v. Johnson, 23 F.4th 136 (1st Cir. 2022). · cites it 4× “R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.2 Carlton's first argument as to why the parties aren't bound by a valid settlement contract succeeds or fails based on the applicability of Section 27-7-2.”
Summit Ins. Co. v. Stricklett, 199 A.3d 523 (R.I. 2019). · cites it 5× “Next, the trial justice interpreted the rejected settlement offer statute, G.L. 1956 § 27-7-2.2, 12 and decided that the statute did not apply in this case because the Alveses had never made an offer to Summit at or around the policy limits.”
Travelers Prop. & Cas. Corp. v. Old Repub. Ins., 847 A.2d 303 (R.I. 2004). · cites it 8× “Third, Old Republic should pay the interest pursuant to G.L.1956 § 27-7-2.2 4 because judgment was entered before Old Republic made a settlement offer.”
Transched Sys. Ltd. v. Fed. Ins., 67 F. Supp. 3d 523 (D.R.I. 2014). · cites it 8× “Count I of TranSched’s complaint alleges that the Policy provides coverage and Count II alleges that TranSched is entitled to additional damages, interest, and fees under R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.2, Rhode Island’s “rejected settlement offer” statute, because Federal failed to…”
Transched Sys. Ltd. v. Fed. Ins., 958 F. Supp. 2d 331 (D.R.I. 2013). · cites it 4× “) In its Complaint, TranSched seeks a declaration that Federal is liable under Rhode Island’s direct action statute, R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.2, and for statutory and/or common-law bad faith.”
Clauson v. New England Ins., 254 F.3d 331 (1st Cir. 2001). · cites it 4× “Clauson sought payment on his judgment up to the stated policy limits as well as interest above those limits pursuant to Rhode Island’s rejected settlement statute, R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-7-2.2. The district court entered judgment for Clau-son on his claim for payment above the…”
Armacost v. Amica Mut. Ins., 11 F.3d 267 (1st Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “The demand specifically referred to the statute at issue, R.I.Gen.Laws § 27-7-2.2. Arnica rejected the demand and made a counter offer of $175,000.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.