Hampton Indoor Tennis Center, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-247,81-247 |
| Citation | 451 A.2d 172,122 N.H. 790 |
| Parties | HAMPTON INDOOR TENNIS CENTER, INC. v. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Solomon & Feld, Portsmouth (Steven Eric Feld, Portsmouth, on the brief and orally), for plaintiff.
Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn & Kohls, Manchester (Theodore Wadleigh, Manchester, on the brief and orally), for defendant.
The questions raised in this appeal are simply stated:
1) Does the "explosion" coverage in the plaintiff's St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul) policy cover a loss caused by the collapse of an air-inflated structure or "bubble," which succumbed to the weight of accumulated melted snow and rain water?
2) Did the trial court properly exclude certain evidence offered by the plaintiff relating to representations made to its agents by representatives of the defendant insurance company?
3) Did the trial court properly dismiss the plaintiff's petition for declaratory judgment?
The case was heard before the Superior Court (Contas, J.), who granted a directed verdict for the defendant at the close of all the evidence. We affirm.
The plaintiff owned and operated a tennis and health club facility, including four tennis courts, in an air-inflated structure located in Hampton, New Hampshire. The structure was held up by a blower system, which maintained an air pressure of 5.2 and 7.5 pounds per square foot against a vinyl-coated dacron fabric. The primary blower system was part of the furnace and was backed up by an auxiliary system, designed to operate when the air pressure dropped below a particular level. The heating system was operated manually. A temperature of 58 degrees Fahrenheit was maintained when the building was used; otherwise, the interior temperature varied according to the outside temperature. On February 26, 1980, the furnace began malfunctioning, and several attempts to repair it were unsuccessful. At some time subsequent to February 26, it was determined that there had been an explosion in the furnace on or about that date. The furnace continued to operate erratically. More trouble beset the plaintiff. On March 13, 1980, melted snow and rain water began accumulating in an indentation on the exterior of the tennis bubble. Then, on the morning of March 14, the structure collapsed. The plaintiff claims that the February 26 furnace explosion resulted in a malfunction of the heating system which failed to maintain sufficient air pressure in the bubble to prevent an accumulation of snow on the exterior, causing the collapse.
The language of the policy which governs is as follows:
"Losses covered by this agreement:
This agreement insures all your property covered under this agreement against direct loss or damage caused by one of the perils listed below. This agreement doesn't insure against any perils not listed here...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrews v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
...relief is a proper means for determining first-party insurance coverage claims. Nor does Hampton Indoor Tennis Center, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 122 N.H. 790, 451 A.2d 172 (1982), dictate a different result. In Hampton, we upheld the trial court's dismissal of a declarat......
- Appeal of Global Moving & Storage of New Hampshire, Inc.
-
Quincy Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Croteau
...properly raised below. State v. Marcotte, 123 N.H. 245, 247, 459 A.2d 278, 279 (1983); Hampton Indoor Tennis Ctr., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 122 N.H. 790, 793, 451 A.2d 172, 173 (1982). We turn to the company's second argument. The company contends that the six-month limitati......