LACONIA ROD & GUN CLUB v. HARTFORD ACC. & INDEMN. CO. No. 82-395.
123 N.H. 179 (1983)
LACONIA ROD & GUN CLUB v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY & a.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
March 24, 1983.
Snierson, Chandler & McKean, of Laconia ( Edgar D. McKean, III, on the brief, and John P. Chandler orally), for the plaintiff.
Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn & Kohls, of Manchester ( Theodore Wadleigh on the brief and orally), for the defendant Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company.
The defendant Alberta Johnson filed no brief.
This is a petition for declaratory judgment brought by the plaintiff, Laconia Rod & Gun Club (club), against the defendant Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (Hartford), seeking a determination that Hartford is obligated to defend an action brought against the club by the defendant Alberta Johnson for injuries she sustained when she was a patron of the club.
In her suit against the club, Alberta Johnson alleged that on`November 9, 1979, the club breached a common-law duty to her by serving alcoholic beverages to her until she became exceedingly intoxicated, and by allowing her to leave the premises without knowing whether she was properly escorted. She claims that as a result of this breach of duty, she fell and was injured upon leaving the club.
On the date of the accident, a commercial liability insurance policy issued by Hartford to the club was in effect. This policy provided insurance coverage for liability for bodily injury, but contained the following exclusion:
The club requested that Hartford enter an appearance in the Johnson action, but Hartford stated that no coverage was afforded
The issue of coverage was submitted to the superior court on an agreed statement of facts and was referred to a master. The Master (Robert A. Carignan, Esq.) held that exclusion (h) in the policy operated to exclude coverage to the club for Johnson's accident, and recommended that judgment be entered for Hartford. The Superior Court (DiClerico, J.) approved the master's recommendation, and the plaintiff appealed. We reverse.
The plaintiff claims that Hillwinds is distinguishable. It argues that exclusion (h) is inapplicable to it because it is not "in the business of" selling or serving alcoholic beverages, as used in section (1) of the exclusion, because it did not make a profit on the beverages, as would a tavern.
Id. at 764, 435 A.2d at 509; see Royal Globe Insurance Cos. v. Graf,
- No Cases Found