Amica Mutual Insurance Company v. Beverly P. Mutrie
167 N.H. 108
| N.H. | 2014Background
- Intervenors (four police officers) sue Mutrie for reckless and wanton conduct enabling her son’s criminal activity on her property.
- Warrant at Greenland property (owned by a trust of which Mutrie is trustee) alleged her son’s criminal conduct; officers were injured when he opened fire and then shot himself.
- Amica sued Mutrie for declaratory judgment seeking defense/indemnity; argued her conduct did not constitute an “occurrence” under the Policies.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Amica; the intervenors appeal; Amica cross-appeals on a different exclusion issue.
- Court reviews de novo whether the conduct at issue qualifies as an “occurrence,” applying the policy language and the inherently injurious standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mutrie’s alleged reckless conduct constitutes an “occurrence.” | Mutrie’s conduct is not inherently injurious; may be accident. | Conduct was inherently injurious and not an accident. | No; conduct deemed inherently injurious and not an occurrence. |
| Whether Mutrie’s conduct meets the inherently injurious standard. | Her knowledge of son’s activity supports an accident analysis. | A reasonable person would foresee some harm, so conduct is inherently injurious. | Yes; conduct was inherently injurious and not accidental. |
| Whether the trial court should have considered additional materials (denials) in ruling. | Denials show lack of knowledge, generating fact issues. | Record showed materials were properly considered; denials irrelevant to policy trigger. | Not error; denials irrelevant to whether writ falls within policy terms. |
| Whether the controlled substances exclusion bars coverage. | Exclusion applies to the underlying conduct. | Not decided because issue not properly appealed or argued. | Not reached/declined. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vermont Mut. Ins. Co. v. Malcolm, 128 N.H. 521 (1986) (definition of accident in insurance policy context)
- Jespersen v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 131 N.H. 257 (1988) (insurer’s duty to defend based on pleadings and policy terms)
- EnergyNorth Natural Gas v. Continental Ins. Co., 146 N.H. 156 (2001) (two tests for accidental causes: actual intention and inherently injurious conduct)
- Providence Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Scanlon, 138 N.H. 301 (1994) (inherently injurious standard—conduct need only be certain to cause some injury)
- United States v. Bullock, 632 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 2011) (recognition of drug trade as dangerous activity)
- United States v. Kenerson, 585 F.3d 389 (7th Cir. 2009) (drug distribution inherently dangerous activity)
- United States v. Woods, no official reporter citation listed in text (2008) (cited for general proposition on dangers of illegal narcotics (LEXIS citation))
- Happy House Amusement v. N. H. Ins. Co., 135 N.H. 719 (1992) (looked beyond writ to surrounding facts in determining duty to defend)
- U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., Inc. v. Johnson Shoes, Inc., 123 N.H. 148 (1983) (affirming duty to defend when pleadings show potential coverage)