Brickley v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co., No. 2009-389.
Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
Writing for the Court | CONBOY |
Citation | 7 A.3d 1215,160 N.H. 625 |
Docket Number | No. 2009-389. |
Decision Date | 19 August 2010 |
Parties | Richard BRICKLEY and another v. PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY. |
160 N.H. 625
Richard BRICKLEY and another
v.
PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY.
No. 2009-389.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
Argued: March 24, 2010.
Opinion Issued: Aug. 19, 2010.
Mulvey Professional Association, of Portsmouth (Patrick A. Mulvey on the memorandum of law and orally), for the plaintiffs.
Wiggin & Nourie, P.A., of Manchester (Gordon A. Rehnborg, Jr. and Mary Ann Dempsey on the brief, and Mr. Rehnborg orally), for the defendant.
CONBOY, J.
In this declaratory judgment proceeding, the defendant, Progressive Northern Insurance Company (Progressive), appeals an order of the Superior Court ( McHugh, J.) denying its motion for summary judgment and granting partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Richard Brickley and Richard Brickley as father and next friend of Cory Brickley. The trial court found that the term "motor vehicle" in the "Uninsured Motorist Coverage" section of the Brickley family's motor vehicle insurance policy was ambiguous and concluded that coverage was required under the policy. We affirm.
The following facts are not in dispute. On April 30, 2008, Cory Brickley (Cory), a minor, was involved in an accident while operating a 2006 Kymco MXU 250 all-terrain vehicle (ATV). As Cory exited from his parents' driveway on Pingree Hill Road in Auburn, he was struck by a Chevrolet Corvette driven by James Russell, an uninsured motorist. The ATV that Cory was operating was owned by his father, Richard, and designed for use and operation principally off public roads. At the
Progressive denied the Brickleys' claim for coverage under an automobile insurance policy, effective April 30, 2008 (the policy), issued to Mary Brickley, the named insured. The policy explicitly insures two automobiles, a 2006 Mitsubishi Outlander SE and a 2002 Mercury Grand Marquis LS, and provides five types of coverage described under separate headings. Richard Brickley (Brickley) filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that Progressive was obligated to provide coverage under Part II of the policy for medical payments and Part III for uninsured motorist coverage. Progressive moved for summary judgment contending that it is not required to provide medical payments coverage because Cory does not meet the definition of an "insured person" under the policy, and that it is not required to provide uninsured motorist coverage because the accident fell within the policy's "household exclusion." Brickley filed a cross-motion for summary judgment arguing, in part, that the ATV Cory was operating is not a "motor vehicle" as defined under the household exclusion and
"We review de novo the trial court's application of the law to the facts in its summary judgment ruling." Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co., 151 N.H. 649, 652, 864 A.2d 368 (2005). We consider all of the evidence presented in the record, and all inferences properly drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. "If our review of that evidence discloses no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, then we will affirm the grant of summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Great Am. Dining, Inc. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., No. 2012–088.
...provides coverage, the policy contains an ambiguity and will be construed against the insurer." Brickley v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 160 N.H. 625, 627, 7 A.3d 1215 (2010) (quotation omitted).164 N.H. 617 The interpretation of an insurance policy, like any contract, is an issue of law f......
-
DAE Aviation Enters., Corp. v. Old Republic Ins. Co., Civil No. 11-cv-554-LM
...construed against thePage 16insurer." MacLearn v. Commerce Ins. Co., 163 N.H. 241, 244 (2012) (quoting Brickley v. Prog. N. Ins. Co., 160 N.H. 625, 627 (2010)). B. Preliminary Matters The court begins by clearing away some underbrush. First, Cardelli argues that "[i]t is well esta......
-
Motorists Commercial Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hartwell, 21-1603
...provides coverage, the policy contains an ambiguity and will be construed against the insurer." Brickley v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 7 A.3d 1215, 1217 (N.H. (quoting Cath. Med. Ctr. v. Exec. Risk Indem., 867 A.2d 453, (N.H. 2005)). III. On appeal, both the Lynnway defendants and the vi......
-
Catholic Med. Ctr. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., Civil No. 14-cv-180-JL
...and in context, the court finds that the term refers to the physical structure of the hospital. Cf. Brickley v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 160 N.H. 625, 629 (2010) (finding ambiguity where terms were defined inconsistently in different parts of insurance policy). Indeed, it would make little ......
-
Great Am. Dining, Inc. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., No. 2012–088.
...provides coverage, the policy contains an ambiguity and will be construed against the insurer." Brickley v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 160 N.H. 625, 627, 7 A.3d 1215 (2010) (quotation omitted).164 N.H. 617 The interpretation of an insurance policy, like any contract, is an issue of law f......
-
DAE Aviation Enters., Corp. v. Old Republic Ins. Co., Civil No. 11-cv-554-LM
...construed against thePage 16insurer." MacLearn v. Commerce Ins. Co., 163 N.H. 241, 244 (2012) (quoting Brickley v. Prog. N. Ins. Co., 160 N.H. 625, 627 (2010)). B. Preliminary Matters The court begins by clearing away some underbrush. First, Cardelli argues that "[i]t is well esta......
-
Motorists Commercial Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hartwell, 21-1603
...provides coverage, the policy contains an ambiguity and will be construed against the insurer." Brickley v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 7 A.3d 1215, 1217 (N.H. (quoting Cath. Med. Ctr. v. Exec. Risk Indem., 867 A.2d 453, (N.H. 2005)). III. On appeal, both the Lynnway defendants and the vi......
-
Catholic Med. Ctr. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., Civil No. 14-cv-180-JL
...and in context, the court finds that the term refers to the physical structure of the hospital. Cf. Brickley v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 160 N.H. 625, 629 (2010) (finding ambiguity where terms were defined inconsistently in different parts of insurance policy). Indeed, it would make little ......