Johnsons v. Reliance Insurance

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: March 13, 1998
• Docket: CV-97-056-M
• Status: Published

Opinion

Johnsons v . Reliance Insurance CV-97-056-M 03/13/98 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Ann Theresa Johnson and James B . Johnson, Jr., Plaintiffs

v. Civil N o . 97-56-M

Reliance Insurance Company of Illinois, Defendant

O R D E R

Defendant insurance company moves for summary judgment on

grounds that plaintiffs have no standing to bring this

declaratory judgment action relative to the scope of insurance

coverage afforded under a policy issued by defendant to its

insured (an alleged tort feasor whom plaintiff is suing in state

court). Defendant says that under New Hampshire law, applicable

here, this suit is premature since no determination of tort

liability has been made, and, until that happens, plaintiffs have

no claim to or interest in the policy, and there is no

justiciable case or controversy. In objecting to defendant’s motion, plaintiffs make no

effort to even address the points raised, but simply refer in

cursory fashion to arguments in their memorandum supporting their

own motion for summary judgment — arguments that have nothing to

do with standing, ripeness or whether there exists a justiciable

case or controversy. Apparently plaintiffs concede sub silentio

that this suit is premature, given their failure to address what

appear to be dispositive points of law. See Anagnos v . Scottsdale Ins. Co., Docket N o . 95-E-166, New Hampshire Superior

Court (Hillsborough, Northern District), Order dated August 2 1 ,

1995 (Groff, J . ) , attached as Exhibit A to defendant’s motion for

summary judgment.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (document n o . 10) is

granted; plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (document n o . 9 )

is denied; the case is dismissed without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge March 1 3 , 1998 cc: Saheed W . Dahar, Esq. David C . Dunn, Esq.