Bouffard v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
162 N.H. 305
| N.H. | 2011Background
- Bouffards switched to State Farm in Jan 2005, transferring umbrella coverage that included UM; plaintiff has multiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair, which made the insurance office inaccessible to her; husband entered the agency to complete applications for auto, homeowners, and umbrella policies; UM rejection for all vehicles was entered on the umbrella application due to a misprint, with the husband claiming he intended to reject only for recreational vehicles; plaintiff later reviewed the umbrella policy and believed UM coverage was included; after an August 2006 auto accident, UM coverage under the umbrella policy was denied under RSA 264:15 for rejection, prompting declaratory judgment proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether common-law agency applies to UM rejection under RSA 264:15 | Bouffard argues agent cannot bind her to reject UM without express authority. | State Farm argues an agency relationship can authorize rejection of UM coverage. | Yes; an agency may waive UM coverage if evidence shows actual or apparent authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Herman v. Monadnock PR-24 Training Council, 147 N.H. 754 (2002) (justice must review law-to-fact application de novo for agency questions)
- Dent v. Exeter Hosp., 155 N.H. 787 (2007) (elements of agency: authorization, consent, and principal control)
- Demetracopoulos v. Strafford Guidance Ctr., 130 N.H. 209 (1987) (implied authority can arise from conduct and acquiescence)
- Noble v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 854 N.E.2d 932 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006) (agency by implied authority supports waiver of UM coverage)