Littlefield v. Acadia Ins. Co. CV-03-220-B 05/11/04

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Daniel Littlefield

v. __________________________Civil No. 03-CV-220 ____________________________________ Opinion No.

Acadia Ins. Co., et. a l .

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This cases arises out of a tragic event on Lake

Winnipesaukee. On August 11, 2002, Daniel Littlefield drove his

father's 36-foot yacht into another boat causing the death of one

of its passengers, John Hartman. Littlefield was convicted of

negligent homicide. Hartman's estate and his widow, Karen

Hartman, have brought a wrongful death action against

Littlefield, now pending in state court. Littlefield filed this

action also, seeking a declaratory judgment that Acadia Insurance

Company ("Acadia") is obliged to indemnify him for any damages

awarded. Acadia seeks summary judgment on the ground that the

policy's "criminal acts" exclusion relieves it of any obligation

to indemnify Littlefield. Littlefield has filed a cross-motion

for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, I grant Acadia's motion and deny Littlefield's cross-motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Daniel Littlefield crashed into another boat while operating

his father's yacht. John Hartman, a passenger on the other boat,

was killed. Following the accident, Littlefield was indicted on

two felony counts. He was convicted of a violation of

(I), a class B felony. The charge on which

Littlefield was found guilty states that he "did negligently

cause the death of another while operating a boat, in that Daniel

Littlefield operated a boat . . . and failed to keep a proper

lookout and the boat operated by Daniel Littlefield struck a boat

in which John Hartman was a passenger and that John Hartman died

as a result of the injuries received in the collision." (Pl.'s

Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 1 at 4). John Hartman's estate and widow

brought a civil suit for damages against Littlefield.

Littlefield's father's yacht was covered by an insurance

policy by Acadia, which was in effect at the time of the

accident. The policy excludes coverage for any "loss, damage or

expenses caused by or resulting . . . [from] any loss, damage or

liability willfully, intentionally or criminally caused or

- 2 - incurred by an insured person." (Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Aff.

Patrick M. O'Toole Ex. A at 8). Acadia seeks summary judgment on

the ground that coverage is barred by the policy's criminal acts

exclusion.1

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate only "if the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party

is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c); see Lehman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,

, 327

(1st Cir. 1996). A genuine issue is one "that properly can be

resolved only by a finder of fact because [it] . . . may reason­

ably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc.,

(1986) . A material fact is one

1 In an objection to Acadia's motion, Karen Hartman argues that Acadia has waived any right it may have to exclude coverage based on the "criminal acts" clause. She relies on her characterization of Acadia's interrogatory responses, claiming that Acadia has never before sought to enforce this exclusion. I read Acadia's responses differently. Acadia did not claim that it had never enforced the clause. It only stated that it could not respond because its files were not catalogued in a manner that would readily yield an answer.

- 3 - that affects the outcome of the suit.

. In ruling on

a motion for summary judgment, the court must construe the

evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and

determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law. Oliver v. Digital Eguip. Corp.,

(1st Cir. 1988).

Where the nonmoving party bears the burden of persuasion at

trial, it must "make a showing sufficient to establish the

existence of [the] element[s] essential to [its] case" to avoid

summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

(1986). It is not sufficient for the nonmovant to "rest upon

mere allegation[s] or denials [contained in that party's]

pleading." LeBlanc v. Great Am. Ins. Co.,

(1st

Cir. 1993) (guoting Anderson,

). Rather, to

establish a trial-worthy issue, there must be enough competent

evidence "to enable a finding favorable to the nonmoving party."

Id. at 842 (internal citations omitted).

Where the moving party bears the burden of persuasion at

trial, the movant must support its position with materials of

evidentiary guality. See Desmond v. Varrasso (In re Varrasso),

, 763 n.l (1st Cir. 1994). Further, "[the] showing

- 4 - must be sufficient for the court to hold that no reasonable trier

of fact could find other than for the moving party." Lopez v.

Corporacion Azucarera de Puerto Rico,

(1st

Cir. 1991) .

I apply these standards to the parties' summary judgment

motions.

III. ANALYSIS

I interpret the policy using New Hampshire law. See Acadia

Ins. Co. v. McNeil,

(1st Cir. 1997). Accordingly, I

first outline New Hampshire's relevant rules of policy

construction and then apply those rules to the facts at issue in

this case.

A. Policy Construction Rules

Determining the meaning of a provision contained in an

insurance policy presents a guestion of law that must be resolved

by the court. Pro Con Constr., Inc. v. Acadia Ins. Co.,

(2002); High Country Assocs. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co.,

(1994). When answering this guestion, the court must

first determine whether judicial precedent "clearly defines [the]

term at issue." Coakley v. Maine Bonding & Cas. Co., 136 N.H.

- 5 - 402, 409-10 (1992). If such precedent exists, the court "need

look no further than that definition."

If a prior Supreme Court decision has not previously defined

a disputed policy term and the policy itself does not define the

term, the court must "construe the policy in the light of what a

more than casual reading of the policy would reveal to an

ordinarily intelligent insured." Coakley, 136 N.H. at 410

(internal guotations omitted). If the policy term is unambiguous

when construed from this perspective, the court must give the

term its plain meaning. Id. If, however, an ordinarily

intelligent insured could reasonably interpret the policy in more

than one way and one of the plausible interpretations favors

coverage, the policy must be construed "in favor of the insured

and against the insurer." High Country Assocs.,

.

In determining whether a term reasonably can be interpreted

in more than one way. New Hampshire courts look to (1) the plain

language of the policy provision in dispute, see High Country

Assocs.,

; (2) whether differences of opinion exist

among other jurisdictions concerning the meaning of the term, see

Hoepp v. State Farm Ins. Co.,

(1997); and (3)

whether dictionaries provide alternative definitions of the term.

- 6 - see Hudson v. Farm Family Mut. Ins. Co.,

(1997); Coakley, 136 N.H. at 417.

B. Application

The policy excludes coverage for "any loss, damage or

liability willfully, intentionally or criminally caused or

incurred by an insured person." (Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Aff.

Patrick M. O'Toole Ex. A at 8). It is undisputed that the

damages for which Littlefield seeks indemnification were the

result of his criminally negligent behavior. Acadia thus argues

that this undisputed fact plainly brings the case within the

scope of the policy's criminal acts exclusion because Littlefield

"criminally caused" the damages for which he is seeking

indemnification. Littlefield, in turn, contends that the phrase

"criminally caused" is ambiguous. Because the exclusion appears

in the same sentence with exclusions for "willfully" and

"intentionally" caused damages, he argues, a reasonable person

would construe the exclusion to similarly apply only to willful

or intentional crimes.

I agree with Acadia. It is well understood that negligence

can be criminal when it results in death. The policy does not

expressly limit the exclusion to intentional crimes and the mere

- 7 - fact that the phrase is grouped with exclusions for willfully and

intentionally caused acts would not cause a reasonably informed

insured to read a limitation into the exclusion that it does not

contain. Accordingly, I hold that the policy unambiguously

excludes the claim for which Littlefield seeks indemnification.2

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, I grant Acadia's motion for

summary judgment (Doc. No. 8). Littlefield's cross-motion for

summary judgment is therefore denied (Doc. No. 10) .

SO ORDERED.

Paul Barbadoro Chief Judge

May 11, 2 004

cc: Gordon A. Rehnborg, Jr., Esg. Leonard W. Langer, Esg. William D. Pandolph, Esg. Emile R. Bussiere, Esg.

2 I also reject Littlefield's argument that the exclusion in unenforceable because it is contrary to public policy. While reasonable people can disagree about whether an insurance company should be permitted to offer insurance that fails to cover liability that results from criminally negligent conduct, the arguments supporting Littlefield's position are not so strong as to render the clause unenforceable.