Fisher v. Worcester Ins.

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: June 30, 1997
• Docket: CV-97-95-SD
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fisher v. Worcester Ins. CV-97-95-SD 06/30/97 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Holly Fisher

v. Civil No. 97-95-SD

Worcester Insurance Company; Harlevsville Insurance Companies

O R D E R

Plaintiff Holly Fisher moves the court to prohibit what she

perceives to be an unlawful "cancellation" of a homeowner's

insurance policy. Document 8. Defendant Worcester Insurance

Company (Worcester) objects. Document 10.

1. Background

This litigation concerns plaintiff's claim that Worcester

has failed to provide proper insurance coverage for damages to

plaintiff's residence apparently caused by oil leakage

contamination. Worcester has made certain payments under its

policy, but has declined coverage to make further payments as

claimed by the plaintiff.

The policy at issue provides coverage for the period

August 16, 1996, to August 16, 1997.1 On or about June 2, 1997,

/See Plaintiff's Complaint 5 6. plaintiff received a notice of "nonrenewal" as of the date of

expiration of said policy on the ground of certain previous

losses sustained under the policy. Plaintiff's Exhibit B.2 It

is this document which plaintiff seeks to have the court construe

as a "cancellation."

2. Discussion

In New Hampshire, the "cancellation, refusal to write and

refusal to renew" of homeowners' policies is governed by

provisions of New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 417-

B. The statute prohibits such action on certain discriminatory

grounds, which are not here applicable, RSA 417-B:2,3 and permits

cancellation on certain other grounds, which are again not here

applicable, RSA 417-B:3.4

2The form set forth as Plaintiff's Exhibit B, attached to the motion, is entitled "Notice of Cancellation, Nonrenewal, Constructive Nonrenewal or Declination of Insurance (New Hampshire)." Its statement of reasons for the action taken is set forth in the "Nonrenewal" portion of such form.

3The provisions of RSA 417-B:2 concerning discrimination include age, residence, race, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, marital status, or lawful occupation, including military service, or refusal because another insurer has refused to write or has canceled or has refused to renew an existing policy in which the applicant was the named insured.

4RSA 417-B:3 limits the reasons for cancellation to nonpayment of premiums; conviction of the insured of a crime having as one of its necessary elements an act increasing any hazard insured against; discovery of fraud or material

2 However, the statute does not forbid refusal to renew

policies, provided that the notice of nonrenewal meets the

requirements of timeliness and specificity set forth in the

statute. RSA 417-B:4. Examination of the circumstances

currently before the court satisfies the court that Worcester has

complied with the statute as to such nonrenewal, and that it has

at no time sought to "cancel" a policy within the meaning of RSA

417-B.

3. Conclusion

For the reasons hereinabove set forth, the court finds and

rules that the motion to prohibit cancellation must be and it is

herewith denied.

SO ORDERED.

Shane Devine, Senior Judge United States District Court

June 30, 1997

cc: Finis E. Williams, Esq. Melinda S. Gehris, Esq.

misrepresentation by the named insured in pursuing a policy claim; discovery of grossly negligent acts or omissions by the insured substantially increasing any of the hazards insured against; physical changes in the insured property which result in the property's becoming uninsurable; and specific request of the insured.