Hartford Ins. Co. v. Bird

Decision Date16 April 1984
Docket NumberNo. 83-252,83-252
Citation124 N.H. 784,480 A.2d 4
PartiesHARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY v. Neil BIRD et al.
CourtNew Hampshire Supreme Court

Kenneth G. Bouchard, Manchester, by brief and orally, for plaintiff.

Keefe & Keefe, Wilton (John Miles Keefe, Wilton, on the brief and orally), for intervenor Marguerite A. Howard, Administratrix of the Estate of Sandra K. Rassier.

BATCHELDER, Justice.

A wrongful death action was brought on March 31, 1981, by the administratrix of the estate of Sandra K. Rassier, who was the victim of a shooting perpetrated by Neil Bird on property owned by his parents. Hartford Insurance Company, insurer of Neil's parents, Leo and Marilyn Bird, brought a petition for declaratory judgment on November 10, 1981, seeking a declaration that Neil was not entitled to coverage under the parents' homeowner's insurance policy.

The administratrix was permitted to intervene in the declaratory judgment action. She moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petition was not timely filed. The Superior Court (Contas, J.) denied the administratrix's motion and granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The administratrix appeals from these rulings.

The administratrix argues, inter alia, that the plaintiff brought its petition outside the six-month limitation set out in RSA 491:22 and that the petition, therefore, should have been dismissed. RSA 491:22 reads in pertinent part:

"No petition [for declaratory judgment] shall be maintained under this section to determine coverage of an insurance policy unless it is filed within 6 months after the filing of the writ which gives rise to the question; provided, however, that the foregoing prohibition shall not apply where the facts giving rise to such coverage dispute are not known to, or reasonably discoverable by, the insurer until after expiration of such 6 month period; and provided, further, that the superior court may permit the filing of such a petition after such period upon a finding that the failure to file such petition was the result of accident, mistake or misfortune and not due to neglect."

(Emphasis added.)

The superior court made no finding of accident, mistake or misfortune in denying the administratrix's motion to dismiss the petition. The plaintiff maintains that its petition was timely filed because it was brought within six months of the date of its having first learned of the "accident in question."

We disagree. RSA 491:22 does not set forth a discovery rule such that the six-month period begins to run from the date of the discovery of the facts giving rise to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Wright, 83-439
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 19 juin 1985
  • Binda v. Royal Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 31 janvier 2000
    ...begins to run from the date of the discovery of the facts giving rise to the dispute over insurance coverage." Hartford Ins. Co. v. Bird , 124 N.H. 784, 786, 480 A.2d 4, 5 (1984). Rather, the six-month period runs from the date the underlying writ is filed. Quincy Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Cr......
  • Scully's Auto-Marine Upholstery, Inc. v. Peerless Ins. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 30 juillet 1992
    ...refers. This is not a "discovery rule" for determining the initial event triggering the six-month period. See Hartford Ins. Co. v. Bird, 124 N.H. 784, 786, 480 A.2d 4, 5 (1984). Under this interpretation of "the filing of the writ," however, the party named in the underlying suit would have......
  • State v. Goding, 83-238
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 16 avril 1984
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT