New Hampshire Insurance v. Bisson
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Campbell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987)
- Thompson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance (Idaho 1985)
- Brouillard v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance (N.H. 1997)
- Lepic Ex Rel. Lepic v. Iowa Mutual Insurance Co. (Iowa 1987)
- Guilfoy v. United Services Automobile Ass'n (N.H. 2006)
- Allstate Insurance v. Armstrong (N.H. 1999)
- Daley v. Allstate Ins. Co. (Wash. 1998)
- Daley v. Allstate Insurance (Wash. 1998)
- Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Cowan (Tex. 1997)
- Gonzales v. Allstate Insurance (N.M. 1996)
- David v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)
- Bowman v. Holcomb (Ohio Ct. App. 1992)
- Tuohy v. Sargent, 89-1071 (1992) (Superior Court of Rhode Island 1992)
- Valliere v. Allstate Insurance (Md. 1991)
- Dahlke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (Iowa 1990)
- McGovern v. Williams (Tex. 1987)
- Izzo v. Colonial Penn Insurance (Conn. 1987)
- American International Underwriters (South Pacific), Ltd. v. American Samoa Government (High Court of American Samoa 1986)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Memorandum Opinion
These cases, consolidated below, raise the issue whether, under an uninsured motorist clause of an insurance policy, an insurance company is liable in excess of the $20,000 policy limit for damages due to loss of consortium arising out of bodily injury to one person, where an insured suffers an injury and a spouse suffers a consequential loss of consortium. An arbitrator awarded $20,000 to Pierrette Bisson for injuries suffered and $9,000 to her husband, Roger, for loss of consortium. Refusing to confirm the $9,000 award to Roger Bisson, the Master (Robert T. Griffith, J., Ret.) recommended, and the Trial Court {Goode, J.) approved, a ruling that “the policy limit for one bodily injury in the accident is $20,000, and the claim for the loss of consortium in this case arises from the bodily injury to Pierrette Bisson” and thus “the policy limit has been exhausted by the payment to her.” We affirm.
In this case, the policy contained a limit of $20,000 for bodily injury to one person and a limit of $40,000 for bodily injury to two or more persons arising out of a single accident. The plaintiff contends that loss of consortium is a separate bodily injury, triggering the $40,000 limit. We disagree.
A spouse has a separate cause of action for loss of consortium, RSA 507:8-a; Bean v. Miller, 122 N.H. 681, 684, 448 A.2d 424, 426 (1982), but it is not a separate “bodily injury,” triggering the multiple injury limit. See id. at 684, 448 A.2d at 426. Although the language of the policy here contains a definition of “bodily injury” that includes “sickness or disease,” we do not find loss of consortium to be included in these terms either. The master
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.