Some on the list might be interested in the issue of this case, in which the Rhode Island Supreme Court has issued a call for amici. Hat tip to one of my 2Ls who works in the courts.
Amberleigh Hudson v. GEICO Insurance Agency, Inc., d/b/a GEICO General Insurance Company (No. 2016-15-A)
https://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/SupremeCourt/SupremeOrders/16-15.pdf
The matter is short enough for me to paste below the Court's description of the case.
<<
Amberleigh Hudson (plaintiff) appeals from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the defendant, GEICO Insurance Agency, Inc., d/b/a GEICO General Insurance Company (defendant), in this uninsured/underinsured-motorist (UM) claim case. The trial justice concluded that plaintiff was not “occupying” a motor vehicle for purposes of UM coverage at the time that she was injured and that, therefore, she could not recover under the insurance policy of that vehicle.
The plaintiff had been a passenger in a parked motor vehicle when she became aware of a sudden motor vehicle collision that occurred approximately twenty feet from her vehicle. She exited her vehicle to render roadside assistance as a “Good Samaritan” under G.L. 1956 § 11-56-1. The plaintiff was struck by an oncoming motor vehicle and injured. The trial justice found that coverage under the policy terms of the vehicle from which plaintiff had exited was not available. Aggrieved by this decision, plaintiff argues that an affirmative duty was imposed on her pursuant to § 11-56-1, which provides, in pertinent part: “[a]ny person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to, or has suffered, grave physical harm shall, to the extent that he or she can do so without danger or peril to himself or herself or to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person.”
. . . . The parties are directed to brief the following issue among any others that they may wish to bring to the attention of this Court:
Whether, in light of § 11-56-1, a “Good Samaritan” who was injured while rendering roadside aid at the scene of an accident may be considered to be “occupying” the insured motor vehicle for purposes of recovering UM benefits.
>>
Amberleigh Hudson v. GEICO Insurance Agency, Inc., d/b/a GEICO General Insurance Company (No. 2016-15-A)
https://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/SupremeCourt/SupremeOrders/16-15.pdf
The matter is short enough for me to paste below the Court's description of the case.
<<
Amberleigh Hudson (plaintiff) appeals from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the defendant, GEICO Insurance Agency, Inc., d/b/a GEICO General Insurance Company (defendant), in this uninsured/underinsured-motorist (UM) claim case. The trial justice concluded that plaintiff was not “occupying” a motor vehicle for purposes of UM coverage at the time that she was injured and that, therefore, she could not recover under the insurance policy of that vehicle.
The plaintiff had been a passenger in a parked motor vehicle when she became aware of a sudden motor vehicle collision that occurred approximately twenty feet from her vehicle. She exited her vehicle to render roadside assistance as a “Good Samaritan” under G.L. 1956 § 11-56-1. The plaintiff was struck by an oncoming motor vehicle and injured. The trial justice found that coverage under the policy terms of the vehicle from which plaintiff had exited was not available. Aggrieved by this decision, plaintiff argues that an affirmative duty was imposed on her pursuant to § 11-56-1, which provides, in pertinent part: “[a]ny person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to, or has suffered, grave physical harm shall, to the extent that he or she can do so without danger or peril to himself or herself or to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person.”
. . . . The parties are directed to brief the following issue among any others that they may wish to bring to the attention of this Court:
Whether, in light of § 11-56-1, a “Good Samaritan” who was injured while rendering roadside aid at the scene of an accident may be considered to be “occupying” the insured motor vehicle for purposes of recovering UM benefits.
>>
Richard J. Peltz-Steele
Professor, UMass Law School
http://ssrn.com/author=625107
The Savory Tort 
@RJPeltzSteele 
+1 508-985-1102
Professor, UMass Law School http://ssrn.com/author=625107 The Savory Tort @RJPeltzSteele +1 508-985-1102