Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Bartlett v. Commerce Ins. Co.

Bartlett v. Commerce Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

February 19, 2015, Argued; April 3, 2015, Opinion Issued

No. 2014-285

Opinion

 [**727]  Dalianis, C.J. Respondent The Commerce Insurance Company (Commerce) appeals, and the petitioner, Terry Ann Bartlett, cross-appeals, an order of the Superior Court (Garfunkel, J.) partially granting and partially denying the petitioner's summary judgment motion, denying Commerce's cross-motion for summary judgment, and granting cross-motions for summary judgment filed by respondents Foremost Insurance Company (Foremost) and Progressive Northern Insurance Company (Progressive). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The trial court recited the following [***2]  facts. The petitioner was injured in a motor vehicle accident in New York in August 2004, when the motorcycle [*524]  on which she was a passenger, which Jeffrey Vilagos owned and operated, was struck by a motor vehicle operated by Myroslaw Mykijewycz. Mykijewycz is insured by Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) under a policy that provides liability insurance coverage up to $100,000 per person. Vilagos's motorcycle, which is registered and garaged in New Jersey, is insured by Foremost. The Foremost policy was issued in New Jersey and provides uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage up to $250,000 per person.

The petitioner also owns a motorcycle, which is registered and garaged in New Hampshire, and which is insured by Progressive under a policy that also provides UIM coverage up to $250,000 per person. The petitioner's other vehicles, which are both registered and garaged in New Hampshire, are insured by Commerce under a policy that provides UIM coverage up to $250,000 per person (the Commerce Auto policy). The petitioner's home is also insured by Commerce under a policy that contains a personal umbrella endorsement that provides $1,000,000 of single limited UIM coverage (the Commerce [***3]  Umbrella policy).

In September 2004, the petitioner's New York attorney requested coverage information from Foremost, which Foremost provided. In April 2005, the petitioner's attorney informed Progressive and Commerce that the petitioner intended to pursue UIM claims.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

167 N.H. 521 *; 114 A.3d 724 **; 2015 N.H. LEXIS 29 ***

Terry Ann Bartlett v. The Commerce Insurance Company & a.

Subsequent History: Decision reached on appeal by Bartlett v. Commerce Ins. Co., 2016 N.H. LEXIS 271 (N.H., Dec. 22, 2016)

Prior History:  [***1]  Hillsborough-northern judicial district

Disposition: Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.

CORE TERMS

coverage, insured, ambiguity, collectible, collectible insurance, insurance clause, provide coverage, primary coverage, trial court, forfeited, statute of limitations, construe, resident, damages, drop, primary insurance, cause of action, excess insurer, consent-to-settle, carrier, parties, words, insurance policy, quotation, argues, excess coverage, primary insurer, Umbrella, terms, settlement

Civil Procedure, Judgments, Summary Judgment, Evidentiary Considerations, Entitlement as Matter of Law, General Overview, Appellate Review, Standards of Review, Governments, Legislation, Statute of Limitations, Time Limitations, Insurance Law, Coverage, Uninsured Motorists, Underinsured Motorists, Federal & State Interrelationships, Choice of Law, Claim, Contract & Practice Issues, Estoppel & Waiver, Burdens of Proof, Policy Coverage Issues, Appeals, Standards of Review, Clearly Erroneous Review, Questions of Fact & Law, Contracts Law, Contract Interpretation, Intent, Policy Interpretation, Ambiguous Terms, Unambiguous Terms, Question of Law, Ordinary & Usual Meanings, Construction Against Insurers, Reasonable Expectations