![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
March 1, 2017, Argued; September 28, 2017, Opinion Issued; November 13, 2017, Opinion Modified
[**1046] Lynn, J. Defendant Arch Specialty Insurance Company (Arch) appeals multiple orders of the Superior Court (McHugh and Anderson, JJ.), granting summary judgment to defendants Triage Staffing, Inc. (Triage), Exeter Hospital, Inc. (Exeter), and American Healthcare Services Association (AHSA) on their petitions for declaratory judgment, and denying Arch's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that Arch is required to defend and indemnify [***2] Triage, Exeter, and AHSA, pursuant to two insurance policies that Arch issued to Triage, for claims asserted against the defendants by patients of Exeter who contracted Hepatitis C (Exeter Patients). On appeal, Arch argues that the trial court erred in finding inapplicable certain exclusions found in the insurance policies and in determining that the claims involved multiple occurrences under the policies. We affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.
In light of the arguments raised, it is important to state the facts and procedure in some detail. The pertinent facts of this case arise from the conduct of David Kwiatkowski, a cardiac catheter laboratory technician who was infected with the Hepatitis C virus. While working at Exeter, Kwiatkowski diverted opioid drugs to his own use and, after injecting himself with such drugs, returned the contaminated needles to the hospital's supply, where they were used in the treatment of numerous patients, some of whom contracted Hepatitis C. Exeter is a member of AHSA, a company that accredits and grades people in the healthcare industry. Exeter and AHSA contracted with Triage, a staffing company that places medical personnel [***3] in medical facilities across the country. Pursuant to these contracts, Triage placed Kwiatkowski at Exeter.
In the wake of Kwiatkowski's actions, the Exeter Patients sued Triage, Exeter, and AHSA. Some of those suits have settled, while others have not. Triage, Exeter, and AHSA each carry insurance through a different insurance company: Arch primarily insures Triage; Hanover Insurance [*345] Company primarily insures Exeter; and Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company (MBIC) primarily insures AHSA. This appeal chiefly concerns whether and to what extent the policies that Arch issued to Triage provide coverage to Triage, as a named insured, and to Exeter and AHSA, as additional insureds.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
170 N.H. 342 *; 172 A.3d 1043 **; 2017 N.H. LEXIS 175 ***
Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company v. American Healthcare Services Association & a.
Prior History: [***1] Rockingham.
Walters v. UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, 2013 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 175 (June 20, 2013)
Disposition: Affirmed in part; reversed in part; vacated in part; and remanded.
insured, coverage, performing, argues, healthcare professional, umbrella coverage, general liability, molestation, medical services, policies, Patients, sexual, ambiguity, provide coverage, summary judgment, malicious act, trial court, quotation, syringes, assault, bodily injury, sexual nature, hired, trial court's ruling, exclude coverage, insurance policy, interpreting, meaningless, underlying insurance, staffing
Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Motions for Summary Judgment, Cross Motions, Appellate Review, Standards of Review, Insurance Law, Procedure, Evidence & Trial, Burdens of Proof, Claim, Contract & Practice Issues, Policy Interpretation, Judicial Review, Reasonable Expectations, Reasonable Person, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Ambiguous Terms, Exclusions, Appeals, Notice of Appeal, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Preservation for Review, Types of Insurance, Excess Insurance, Umbrella Policies, Ambiguous Terms, Construction Against Insurers, Policy Interpretation