Date: 10-31-2024

Case Style:

Shane Pelissier, et al. v. GEICO Insurance Company

Case Number: 2022-0714

Judge: Not Available

Court: Superior Court, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Manchester Insurance Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Clara E. Lyons

Description:

Manchester, New Hampshire insurance law lawyer represented the Plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs sought compensation for damages arising out of a July 29, 2017 automobile accident. They assert that the other driver was at fault. The plaintiffs filed suit against the alleged tortfeasor prior to the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. See RSA 508:4, I (2010). The plaintiffs maintain that it was not until November 2021 that they learned, during discovery in their case against the alleged tortfeasor, that the tortfeasor's liability insurance policy limit was less than the plaintiffs' accident-related medical expenses. The plaintiffs formally notified the defendant of their intent to file an underinsured motorist claim on November 5, 2021. On November 30, 2021, the defendant denied the plaintiffs' underinsured motorist claim relying on the "Statute of Limitations" provision (hereinafter, contractual limitations provision) in the plaintiffs' insurance policy that required the plaintiffs to file suit for underinsured motorist benefits within three years of the date of the accident - that is, within three years of July 29, 2017.

On February 19, 2022 - four and a half years after the accident but less than three months after the defendant denied their claim - the plaintiffs filed suit against the defendant seeking underinsured motorist benefits. The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the plaintiffs failed to bring suit within three years of the date of the accident as required by the contractual limitations provision.

The trial court denied the defendant's motion. The trial court reasoned that, because there is no breach of contract until the defendant's purportedly wrongful denial of an underinsured motorist claim, the contractual limitations provision is unenforceable given that it could require insureds to file suit before a justiciable cause of action exists. Additionally, the trial court found that: (1) using the date of the accident as the triggering event for the contractual limitations provision is contrary to the public policy "underlying the . . . statutory requirement in RSA 264:15"; and (2) there is a material factual dispute as to whether the plaintiffs could have discovered the policy limits of the alleged tortfeasor prior to the expiration of the contractual limitations period. The defendant filed a motion for reconsideration. The trial court denied the motion; it nonetheless granted the defendant's interlocutory
appeal motion. The defendant prepared an interlocutory appeal statement, the trial court signed it, and the defendant submitted the statement to this court.

[¶ 5] The substance of the questions presented in this interlocutory appeal is whether the trial court erred when: (1) it declined to enforce the contractual limitations provision; (2) it found that there was an issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiffs could have reasonably complied with the contractual limitations provision; and (3) it ruled that the contractual limitations provision is void because it violates the policy underlying New Hampshire's uninsured motorist statute, RSA 264:15. We answer the first and third questions in the negative and need not address the second.

* * *

Pelissier v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2022-0714 (N.H. Oct 25, 2024)

Outcome: Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: