NHCaseLaw.com

Before the court is one of several similar lawsuits concerning the alleged failure of numerous insurance companies to refund unearned insurance premiums to their clients. Sharon Dunn and Robin Preve (the "plaintiffs") are purchasers of credit life and credit disability insurance issued by American Heritage Life Insurance Company ("the defendant" or "AHL"), a credit insurer. The plaintiffs have brought an action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against the defendant, alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) restitution; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) conversion; and (6) equitable relief including an accounting, the imposition of a constructive trust, and an order requiring AHL to implement controls to assure the prompt refund of unearned premiums. The plaintiffs now move for class certification as to Count I (Breach of Contract), contending that this case satisfies the requirements of Superior Court Rule 27-A. The defendant objects. Upon review of the parties' pleadings and the applicable law, the court finds and rules as follows.

The petitioner in this case asks the Court to establish a constructive trust as to property owned by the respondent, Portsmouth Animal Hospital, PLLC. The property is located at 1000 Islington Street in Portsmouth, New Hampshire and is the location of the petitioner's dental clinic. Thomas Chase, the spouse of Carolyn, is the owner of the PLLC. The parties are in the midst of an acrimonious divorce which has resulted in a number of orders involving the use and occupancy of the property.

This action for civil conspiracy and violation of the Consumer Protection Act, RSA 358-A, was commenced in February 2001. The plaintiffs are three creditors of the defendants Reginald Gaudette, his wife Louise Gaudette (hereinafter the Gaudettes), and/or various corporations, partnerships or other entities which the Gaudettes controlled. The remaining defendants are Jeffrey Gaudette and Lisa Robinson, son and daughter of the Gaudettes; Edith and Lionel Gaudette, mother and father of Reginald; Thomas J. Thomas, Jr., Esq., Marc L. Van De Water, Esq. and Glenn C. Raiche, Esq. (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “the lawyer defendants”), attorneys who provided legal services to the Gaudettes or entities which they controlled; and Mark Ring, a certified public accountant (CPA) who provided accounting services for the Gaudettes or related entities. Plaintiffs’ amended bill in equity alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud the plaintiffs, in their capacity as creditors of the Gaudettes or entities controlled by them, from collecting on their claims or judgments by sheltering or concealing assets of the debtors through a series of fraudulent transfers and the creation of various “shell” entities. Because most if not all of the allegedly fraudulent activities of the defendants occurred in connection with proceedings before the United States Bankruptcy Court involving, first, R & R Associates (a partnership in which Reginald Gaudette was a partner) and, later, Gaudette himself as debtors, the lawyer defendants now move to dismiss this case on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by federal bankruptcy law. I conclude that the lawyer defendants’ position is correct and that their motion must be granted.

Dartmouth College was founded in 1769. Under the Dartmouth College Charter, the College is governed by a Board of Trustees (“Board”). Between 1769 and 1891, the Trustees of Dartmouth College designated their own successors, who exercised authority and responsibility over the College governance without participation from College alumni. Starting in the 1860s, the Association and its members began pressing the College for alumni participation on the Board. (Petition ¶8). The dialogue between the Association and the College continued throughout the 1860s, 1870s and 1880s. (Pet. ¶¶ 9, 10, and 11). In June of 1891, the College and the Association reached an agreement that became known as the “1891 Agreement” (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”).