Rivera v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance
163 N.H. 603
| N.H. | 2012Background
- Rivera was driving a 2005 Toyota Matrix when passenger Chateauneuf grabbed the wheel, causing a single-vehicle crash in Dracut, MA; Chateauneuf was later convicted of assault with a deadly weapon.
- The policy listed Rivera as a covered driver and the 2005 Toyota as a covered vehicle, with liability coverage subject to a entitlement exclusion for intentional or wrongful conduct.
- The policy also provides uninsured motorist (UM) coverage, amended by an endorsement, and an owned vehicle exclusion within the UM definition.
- Liberty Mutual denied UM coverage, contending the 2005 Toyota was excluded from the UM definition by the owned vehicle exclusion; it also argued entitlement exclusion precluded liability coverage.
- Rivera filed suit seeking UM coverage or, alternatively, liability coverage; the trial court granted Rivera summary judgment on UM coverage and ruled the entitlement exclusion precluded liability coverage, but found the 2005 Toyota fit the UM vehicle definition.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding Rivera, despite the ownership exclusion, qualified for UM coverage under RSA 264:15, I, as the operator of an uninsured vehicle, to effectuate the statute’s purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the owned vehicle exclusion defeats UM coverage here. | Rivera: statute requires UM coverage; owned vehicle exclusion contravenes RSA 264:15, I. | Liberty Mutual: owned vehicle exclusion is valid; excludes the 2005 Toyota from UM. | The owned vehicle exclusion cannot defeat UM coverage under the facts; Rivera is entitled to UM coverage. |
| Whether RSA 264:15, I requires UM coverage despite a liability exclusion for the driver. | Rivera: as authorized operator, she falls within UM under RSA 264:15, I. | Liberty Mutual: Wegner allows liability exclusion to negate UM in similar scenarios. | RSA 264:15, I requires UM coverage for Rivera; liability exclusion does not bar UM. |
| Whether Wegner limits the interpretation of RSA 264:15, I to deny UM in this scenario. | Wegner not controlling because Rivera was an authorized operator, not a passenger. | Wegner supports denying UM where liability coverage is validly excluded. | Wegner does not control; Rivera qualifies for UM under the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beliveau v. Norfolk & Dedham Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 120 N.H. 73 (1980) (household exclusion allowed; public policy not violated by exclusion in that context)
- Matarese v. N.H. Mun. Assoc. Prop.‑ Liab. Ins. Trust, 147 N.H. 396 (2002) (UM coverage to compensate insureds where uninsured motorist gap exists)
- Swain v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 150 N.H. 574 (2004) (UM coverage construed to fulfill statutory purpose; broad construction favored)
- Charest v. Union Mut. Ins. Co., 113 N.H. 683 (1973) (uninsured motorist coverage purposefully construed to aid insureds; broad interpretation)
- Wegner v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 148 N.H. 107 (2002) (valid liability exclusions do not mandate UM coverage; conflict with statute not present in this fact pattern)