New Hampshire Ins. v. Bisson, 449 A.2d 1226 (N.H. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
New Hampshire Ins. v. Bisson, 449 A.2d 1226 (N.H. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
42 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Allstate Ins. v. Armstrong, 738 A.2d 1280 (N.H. 1999)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
449 A.2d at 1227 holding policy limit for bodily injury to one person includes consequential loss of consortium claim8 citing cases2 citing courts put it this way
  • Allstate Ins. v. Armstrong, 738 A.2d 1280 (N.H. 1999).
    (holding policy limit for bodily injury to one person includes consequential loss of consortium claim)
  • Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cowan, 945 S.W.2d 819 (Tex. 1997).
    Co. v. Bisson, 122 N.H. 747 , 449 A.2d 1226, 1227 (1982); SL Indus. v. American Motorists Ins.
  • Brouillard v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 693 A.2d 63 (N.H. 1997).
    In both New Hampshire Insurance Co. v. Bisson, 122 N.H. 747, 748 , 449 A.2d 1226, 1227 (1982), and Bean v. Miller, 122 N.H. 681, 684 , 448 A.2d 424, 426 (1982), we held that even though a spouse has a separate cause of action for loss of c…
  • Gonzales v. Allstate Ins., 921 P.2d 944 (N.M. 1996).
    Co. v. Bisson, 122 N.H. 747 , 449 A.2d 1226, 1227 (1982); McGovern v. Williams, 741 S.W.2d 373, 374 (Tex.1987); Federal Kemper Ins.
  • Valliere v. Allstate Ins., 596 A.2d 636 (Md. 1991).
    Co. v. Bisson, 122 N.H. 747, 748 , 449 A.2d 1226, 1227 (1982); South Carolina Ins.
  • Dahlke v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 451 N.W.2d 813 (Iowa 1990).
    (loss of consortium is not bodily injury)
  • McGovern v. Williams, 741 S.W.2d 373 (Tex. 1987).
    See Campbell v. Farmers Insurance Co., 155 Ariz. 102 , 745 P.2d 160 (Ariz.Ct.App.1987); Bakken v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 139 Ariz. 296 , 678 P.2d 481, 485 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1983); United Services Automobile Ass’n v. Warner…
  • Lepic Ex Rel. Lepic v. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co., 402 N.W.2d 758 (Iowa 1987). 2 cites
    Co. v. Bisson, 449 A.2d 1226, 1227 (N.H.1982); Hutton v. Martin, 43 Wash. 574, 577 , 262 P.2d 202, 204 (1953); Thompson v. Grange Ins.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
New Hampshire Insurance Company
v.
Roger Bisson Pierrette Bisson & a. v. New Hampshire Insurance Company
No. 81-314.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
Aug 17, 1982.
449 A.2d 1226
1982 N.H. LEXIS 444
Augustine J. McDonough P.A., of Manchester (Augustine J. McDonough and Mark L. Mallory on the brief), by brief for New Hampshire Insurance Company., Craig, Wenners, Craig & McDowell P.A., of Manchester (Joseph F. McDowell, III, on the brief), by brief for the Bissons.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published

Memorandum Opinion

These cases, consolidated below, raise the issue whether, under an uninsured motorist clause of an insurance policy, an insurance company is liable in excess of the $20,000 policy limit for damages due to loss of consortium arising out of bodily injury to one person, where an insured suffers an injury and a spouse suffers a consequential loss of consortium. An arbitrator awarded $20,000 to Pierrette Bisson for injuries suffered and $9,000 to her husband, Roger, for loss of consortium. Refusing to confirm the $9,000 award to Roger Bisson, the Master (Robert T. Griffith, J., Ret.) recommended, and the Trial Court {Goode, J.) approved, a ruling that “the policy limit for one bodily injury in the accident is $20,000, and the claim for the loss of consortium in this case arises from the bodily injury to Pierrette Bisson” and thus “the policy limit has been exhausted by the payment to her.” We affirm.

In this case, the policy contained a limit of $20,000 for bodily injury to one person and a limit of $40,000 for bodily injury to two or more persons arising out of a single accident. The plaintiff contends that loss of consortium is a separate bodily injury, triggering the $40,000 limit. We disagree.

A spouse has a separate cause of action for loss of consortium, RSA 507:8-a; Bean v. Miller, 122 N.H. 681, 684, 448 A.2d 424, 426 (1982), but it is not a separate “bodily injury,” triggering the multiple injury limit. See id. at 684, 448 A.2d at 426. Although the language of the policy here contains a definition of “bodily injury” that includes “sickness or disease,” we do not find loss of consortium to be included in these terms either. The master[*749] correctly determined that $20,000 was the limit of the insurer’s liability.

Affirmed.