NHCaseLaw.com

The plaintiff, Maida E. Demeule, commenced this negligence action against the defendant, Linda M. Morin-Binder, seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained from a motor vehicle accident in May 2004 ("the accident"). The plaintiff now moves in limine to introduce evidence at trail of medical bills written off by the plaintiffs medical care providers. The defendant objects, The plaintiff also moves to take videotaped depositions. The defendant assents in part. On January 8, 2007, the court held, a hearing on these matters. After a review of the parties' arguments and the applicable law, the court finds and rules as follows.

NOW COMES the plaintiff, Heath Christiansen, by and through his attorneys, Schuster, Buttrey & Wing, P.A., and, by way of Objection to the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment As To The Measure of Medical Expense Damages, respectfully states 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.

The Court has reviewed the transcript of plaintiffs deposition, submitted under Court order of January 31, 2005. By way of brief background, plaintiff claims defendant-decedent failed to stop at a red light on March 16, 2001, striking her vehicle and causing her personal injuries. Plaintiff also claims lost wages from April, 2003 forward. Before the Court is plaintiffs Motion to Appoint a Commissioner, following the abrupt termination of plaintiffs deposition.

Duggan, J. The plaintiffs, Peter J. Rodgers and Christian Pare, appeal from a Superior Court (T. Nadeau, J.) order in favor of defendant Colby’s Ol’ Place, Inc. (Colby’s). The plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion to reallocate the award of damages. We affirm.

The plaintiffs file this law suit seeking damages for injuries the decedent suffered as a result of a car accident involving Jane Morgan, a woman the defendants hired to assist with an engagement party at their home. The plaintiffs allege that Ms. Morgan became intoxicated at the defendants' home and thereafter caused the accident which resulted in Edna Mae Thompson's death. As a result, the plaintiffs claim the defendants are liable as social hosts, that they are vicariously liable as the employer of Ms. Morgan, and that the defendants were negligent in their supervision of Ms. Morgan. The defendants' move for summary judgment on all counts, including counts for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

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.

Lincoln & Carol Hanscom (“Plaintiffs”) have sued Linda O’Connell (“Defendant”) for damages for injuries suffered in an automobile accident. Before the Court is the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count III of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The Plaintiffs object. For the following reasons the Motion to Dismiss Count III is DENIED.

Plaintiffs have filed this negligence action for damages arising from a motor vehicle incident which occurred on or about December 16, 2003. Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion to allow expert disclosure without compliance with RSA 516:29-b. This motion asserts that the disclosure and reporting provisions of the statute, RSA 516:29-b, II & III, do not apply to treating physicians and that the statute is unconstitutional. Defendant objects.