Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. Hopkins
Decision Date | 30 December 1963 |
Citation | 196 A.2d 66,105 N.H. 231,13 A.L.R.3d 817 |
Parties | , 13 A.L.R.3d 817 HARDWARE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY v. Clyde H. HOPKINS et al. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Sullivan, Gregg & Horton, Sherman D. Horton, Jr., Nashua, for plaintiff.
Upton, Sanders & Upton, John H. Sanders, Concord, for defendants Smith.
George P. Cofran and L. Wilder Quint, Concord, for defendant Merchants Mutual Ins. Co.
Cheever & Sullivan, Wilton, for Clyde H. Hopkins.
William D. Tribble, Jaffrey, for Willard E. McGinnis, Jr.
Kenneth A. Brighton and Richard R. Fernald, Petersboro, for defendants Garabrant.
Devine, Millimet, McDonough, Stahl & Branch, Manchester (by brief as amicus curiae).
Wiggin, Nourie, Sundeen, Nassikas & Pingree, Manchester (by brief as amicus curiae).
The pertinent facts bearing upon the issue before us are stated in the reserved case in the following language:
'By writs brought against Kenneth Garabrant returnable to the Superior Court for the County of Merrimack on the first Tuesday of May, 1963, J. Gilbert Smith sought damages of $30,000 for his injuries, consequential damages of $50,000 for injuries to his wife, Gladys Smith, and consequential damages of $20,000 for injuries to his minor son, Joel Smith; J. Gilbert Smith, Administrator of the Estate of Geoffrey Smith sought damages of $35,000 for injuries to and the death of his minor son, Geoffrey, Smith; J. Gilbert Smith, Administrator of the Estate of Deborah Smith, sought damages of $25,000 for injuries to and the death of his minor daughter, Deborah Smith; Gladys Smith sought damages of $100,000 for her injuries; and Joel Smith, by his father and next friend, J. Gilbert Smith, sought damages of $100,000 for his injuries.'
The insurance carriers are willing to submit for inspection the three policies involved but do object to disclosing the amounts of coverage on the ground that they are not material to the pending civil actions and that there is no inherent discoverable interest in the information of coverage limits and the defendants Smith here are on 'a fishing expedition.'
Although subject to limitations (Staargaard v. Public Service Company 96 N.H. 17, 69 A.2d 4), McDuffey v. Boston & Maine R. R. Co., 102 N.H. 179, 181, 152 A.2d 606, 608, 74 A.L.R.2d 872.
Defendant Smith's counsel argued to the Trial Court that it is necessary to know Counsel further argues that it is necessary to know at least whether the Merchants Mutual policy ever comes into effect since if there is sufficient coverage in the Hardware Mutual policy to cover the ad damnum and they are required to pay, Merchants probably would never come into play.
In Villars v. City of Portsmouth, 100 N.H. 453, 129 A.2d 914 we allowed discovery of the coverage limit of any liability policy since if negligent the city could claim governmental immunity as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Murray
...573 (1964); State ex rel. Allen v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 69 Nev. 196, 245 P.2d 999 (1952); Hardware Mut. Casualty Co. v. Hopkins, 105 N.H. 231, 196 A.2d 66, 13 A.L.R.3d 817 (1963); Goheen v. Goheen, 9 N.J.Misc. 507, 154 A. 393 (1931); Gold v. Jacobi, 52 Misc.2d 491, 276 N.Y.S.2d 309 ......
-
Calderwood v. Calderwood
...113 N.H. 627, 312 A.2d 693 (1973); Farnum v. Bristol-Myers Co., 107 N.H. 165, 167, 219 A.2d 277, 279 (1966); Hardware Mutual Cas. Co. v. Hopkins, 105 N.H. 231, 196 A.2d 66 (1963); cf. Comer v. Comer, 110 N.H. 505, 272 A.2d 586 On the other hand, neither the court nor Walter's former wife is......
-
Fort v. Neal
...573 (1964); State ex rel. Allen v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 69 Nev. 196, 245 P.2d 999 (1952); Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Hopkins, 105 N.H. 231, 196 A.2d 66, 13 A.L.R.3d 817 (1963). As already indicated, we are satisfied that the decisions in the last cited cases have correctly inte......
-
Durocher's Ice Cream, Inc. v. Peirce Const. Co.
...the existence of insurance in the ordinary tort case is not a matter for inquiry on deposition or discovery. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Hopkins, 105 N.H. 231, 234, 196 A.2d 66. In the present case none of the questions asked relate to insurance and are not in the realm of forbidden inq......