NHCaseLaw.com

HICKS, J. The appellant, Fire Casualty Insurance Co. of CT (carrier), insurance carrier for the White Mountain School District (district), appeals the decision of the New Hampshire Compensation Appeals Board (board) ruling that it must pay certain medical bills of the claimant, Lewis Mello. We reverse and remand.

The New Hampshire Insurance Guaranty Association ("NHIGA") has brought a petition for declaratory judgment in which NHIGA seeks a judicial determination that it is not required to pay certain claims brought by Christopher F. Jacques against an insolvent insurer. The parties are before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment concerning the issues.

BRODERICK, C.J. The respondent, Vermont Mutual Insurance Company (Vermont Mutual), appeals the denial by the Superior Court (Abramson, J.) of its summary judgment motion, and the grant of petitioner Marilyn Bates’ cross-motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

The petitioner, Acadia Insurance Company ("Acadia"), has filed a petition for declaratory judgment requesting that the court declare its obligations pursuant to insurance policies issued to the defendant, Four Star Flooring, Inc. ("Four Star"), void. Acadia seeks to avoid its insurance obligations due to the alleged fraudulent conduct of defendants, John Kallelis ("Kallelis") and Theresa Nenni ("Nenni"), formerly known as Theresa Kallelis, in filing claims for workers' compensation and underinsured motorist benefits. Nenni has filed three motions to dismiss the equity petition, all to which Acadia has objected. Upon consideration of the parties' pleadings, and for the reasons set forth herein, the court finds and rules as follows.

The plaintiff claims the defendant failed to pay damages under an insurance contract for uninsured motorist coverage and acted with bad faith when it adjusted the plaintiffs uninsured motorist coverage. The defendant moves to stay the plaintiffs bad faith claim, arguing proceeding on this claim at the same time as the plaintiffs breach of contract claim may be a waste of the parties’ and the court’s resources and is prejudicial to the defendant. The plaintiff objects. The court held a hearing on this matter on September 2, 2005. After a review of the parties’ pleadings and the applicable law, the court finds and rules as follows.

BRODERICK, C.J. The plaintiff, Joseph Bates, appeals an order of the Superior Court (Arnold, J.) granting summary judgment to the defendant, Phenix Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Phenix Mutual). We affirm.

GALWAY, J. The appellant, Diane Bruns, appeals orders of the Superior Court (Fitzgerald and McHugh, JJ.) granting summary judgment in favor of the appellee, State Farm Insurance Company (State Farm). We affirm.

The instant action arises out of defendants' refusal to provide coverage under two general liability insurance policies for costs incurred by the plaintiff, Mill Steel Supply Corp. ("Mill Steel"), in the settlement of counterclaims in an underlying suit. In January of 1998, Mill Steel terminated several employees and filed suit against them. Subsequent to the termination but prior to bringing the underlying suit, Mill Steel wrote a letter in which it allegedly defamed its former employees. The various defendants in the underlying action filed countersuits alleging wrongful termination, interference with advantageous business and employment relations, breach of contract, defamation by libel, and malicious prosecution. One defendant sought compensation under a theory of quantum meruit. Travelers did not provide Mill Steel a defense to the counterclaims, nor did it reimburse Mill Steel's costs in defending against the counterclaims. Defendant Acadia Insurance Company also denied coverage. As a result, Mill Steel filed the instant action.

Robert and Cynthia Engelhardt ("the petitioners") bring the instant petition for declaratory judgment against Concord Group Insurance Companies ("the respondent"). The petitioners seek a determination as to whether the respondent must provide underinsured motorist coverage under a business auto policy for injuries sustained by petitioner Robert Engelhardt in an automobile accident caused by a third party. In its order of July 27, 2001, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the respondent on most issues. The Court reserved for trial, however, the issue of whether representations made by the respondent and its agent resulted in the petitioners' having "reasonable expectations" of coverage under the commercial policy when using the family car for business purposes. See Trefethen v. N.H. Ins. Group, 138 N.H. 710, 714 (1994) (annunciating "reasonable expectations" doctrine). At the hearing held 2/28/02, the petitioner raised an additional argument regarding policy interpretation.