麻豆原创

A claim provision requiring insureds to seek underinsured benefits from their auto insurer within three years of an accident is unenforceable in New Hampshire because it restricts the right of insureds to obtain the same benefits they would have received if underinsurance were not an issue.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court, noting that such a provision could require insureds to seek underinsurance benefits before they even know if the other party is underinsured, ruled that such a requirement in a Geico General Insurance Co. contract violates the public policy behind the motor vehicle statute governing uninsured motorist coverage (RSA 264:15).

“The overall goal of the [uninsured motorist] statute is to promote a public policy of placing insured persons in the same position that they would have been if the offending uninsured motorist had possessed comparable liability insurance by broadening protection for those injured in accidents involving uninsured motorists,” the court stated.

Thus while state law gives insureds three years after an accident to sue the other driver for damages, Geico’s three-year underinsurance claim deadline denies them the same benefits because it is tied to the date of the accident and not to when they discover that the other driver is underinsured.

Because the contractual limitations provision “unreasonably restricts the plaintiffs’ ability to obtain the same benefits they would have been entitled to had the alleged tortfeasor had comparable liability insurance coverage,” the court concluded that it violates the public policy underlying the statute.

The ruling was a win for Shane and Maura Pelissier, who sought compensation for damages arising out of a July 29, 2017 automobile accident. They filed suit against the driver they said was responsible for the accident prior to the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. During the course of that litigation they learned that the driver’s liability insurance policy limit was less than their accident-related medical expenses. By then it was November 2021 — more than four years after the accident.

Geico denied their underinsured motorist claim relying on the provision that required them to file for underinsured motorist benefits within three years of the date of the accident.

Less than three months after Geico denied their claim but four and a half years after the accident, the Pelissiers sued Geico for underinsured motorist benefits.

Geico maintained that the three-year provision triggered by the date of the accident does not violate the public policy because it provides the plaintiffs with the same rights they would have had if the tortfeasor had comparable liability coverage.

The high court disagreed with Geico, concluding that “the insureds’ ability to recover for their injuries is restricted as compared to a person injured in an accident caused by a motorist with liability coverage equal to the liability coverage purchased by the insureds.”