Northern Security Insurance v. Connors
161 N.H. 645
| N.H. | 2011Background
- Civil action arising from 2005 murder of Jack F. Reid; Reid’s estate and family sue Brooks, Knight, Benton, Vrooman, Jesse Brooks, and Connors in Rockingham County (Reid v. Brooks No. 08-C-543).
- Connor(s) allegedly participated by receiving a package and permitting use of property; package allegedly contained a stun gun/papers and Brooks urged use of Connors’ property.
- Northern Security insured Connors; policy Section II provides defense/indemnity for covered bodily injury/property damage from an occurrence.
- Enhancement Amendment adds personal injury (false imprisonment, libel/slander, invasion of privacy) and states Section II Exclusions do not apply to personal injury.
- Policy excludes bodily injury that is expected or intended by the insured, but amendment removes that exclusion for personal injury claims; trial court held coverage for conspiracy to false imprisonment and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Court held Northern Security must defend Connors on conspiracy to commit false imprisonment and negligent infliction of emotional distress; factual questions regarding interconnectedness remain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the personal injury endorsement triggers for conspiracy to false imprisonment | Northern Security argues endorsement covers false imprisonment claims regardless of intent; exclusions do not apply. | Connors contends no false imprisonment claim against him exists; broader scheme unclear. | Yes; duty to defend exists for conspiracy to false imprisonment. |
| Whether the alleged conspiracy/NDIST claims constitute an occurrence under the policy | Conspiracy and NDIST fall within personal injury offenses and are covered as accidents | Conspiracy claims cannot be accidents; intent defeats coverage | Ambiguity resolved in favor of coverage; occurrence considered an accident for this context. |
| Whether the conspiracy claim is inextricably intertwined with the murder, precluding coverage | Interconnectedness disputed; covered acts not clearly tied to murder | Overall plan encompasses murder; covered and uncovered claims cannot be separated | Dispute exists; insurer has duty to defend conspiracy and NDIST counts. |
| Whether damages alleged are entirely from the uncovered murder act | Damages attributed to wrongful acts within policy scope | Damages arise from murder, outside coverage | Arguments not addressed due to procedural insufficiency; court reserved ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruns v. State Farm Ins. Co., 156 N.H. 708 (2008) (duty to defend hinges on pleadings; intertwined claims assessed in light of policy)
- Philbrick v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 156 N.H. 389 (2007) (interpretation favors insured when language ambiguous)
- Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Barbara B., 4 Cal.4th 1076 (1993) (duty to defend when doubt exists as to covered liability)
- Preferred National Ins. Co. v. Docusearch, 149 N.H. 759 (2003) (damages arising solely from non-covered act not recoverable)
- Reid v. Brooks (unrelated caption; cited for intertwined claims principle), — (—) (illustrates intertwined vs separable claims analysis)