Tessier v. Rockefeller, 162 N.H. 324

Lorraine Tessier sues Regina Rockefeller and Nixon Peabody, alleging threats to her husband and asset stripping tied to a settlement with Dr. Jakobiec.
Rockefeller allegedly threatened Tessier and her husband to recover assets, threatening reporting to the attorney discipline office and criminal proceedings.
Following alleged duress, Tessier signed a 2007 settlement and a reverse mortgage; defendants allegedly transferred assets and reported Tessier’s husband to authorities.
Plaintiff asserts counts including fraudulent misrepresentation, abuse of process, tortious interference, breach of good faith, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, respondeat superior, and negligent failure to train; the trial court dismissed, and plaintiff appeals.
The court explicitly held Count I viable for fraudulent misrepresentation and remanded; other counts were either dismissed or remanded in part; the matter was affirmed in part and remanded in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fraudulent misrepresentation viability	Tessier alleged misrepresentation by Rockefeller relayed via Tessier to plaintiff.	Rockefeller and Nixon Peabody contended no direct contact created duty.	Count I viable; remanded for further proceedings.
Abuse of process viability	Defendants misused court processes via threats to pressure settlement.	No use of process against plaintiff; threats not within abuse of process.	Count II dismissed affirmed.
Tortious interference with contractual relations viability	Defendants interfered with plaintiff’s contractual relationships to coerce performance.	No interference with a contract between plaintiff and a third party; parties to the agreement not involved.	Count III dismissed.
Duty of good faith and fair dealing and possible contract formation	Oral and written contracts existed with defendants based on promises not to report misconduct.	No privity or meeting of the minds; defendants not party to the settlement.	Count IV affirmed; no basis for contract-based claim.
Negligent infliction of emotional distress viability	Defendants’ actions caused severe emotional distress with medical consequences.	No direct conduct toward plaintiff; threats to husband insufficient.	Count VI reversed and remanded; sufficient to proceed.

General Insulation Co. v. Eckman Constr., 159 N.H. 601 (2010) (threshold inquiry for motion to dismiss; pleadings construed in plaintiff's favor)
Williams v. O’Brien, 140 N.H. 595 (1995) (court must scrutinize pleadings for basis of relief)
In re Estate of Hollett, 150 N.H. 39 (2003) (duress as a contract defense; not grounds for damages against nonparties)
Long v. Long, 136 N.H. 25 (1992) (abuse of process requires use of legal process with improper motive or purpose)
Amabello v. Colonial Motors, 117 N.H. 556 (1977) (abuse-of-process standard and reliance on authority)