Preview:

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________ Rockingham No. 2007-179

GRAND CHINA, INC. & a. v. UNITED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Argued: September 19, 2007 Opinion Issued: November 9, 2007

Steven G. Shadallah and Stephen E. Woodbury, of Salem (Mr. Shadallah and Mr. Woodbury on the brief, and Mr. Shadallah orally), for Grand China, Inc.

Sulloway & Hollis, P.L.L.C, of Concord (Margaret H. Nelson and Martin L. Gross on the brief, and Margaret H. Nelson orally), for the respondent.

Upton & Hatfield, LLP, of Portsmouth (Russell F. Hilliard on the brief and orally), for the intervenor.

Kelly A. Ayotte, attorney general (Glenn A. Perlow, assistant attorney general, on the brief), for the New Hampshire Insurance Department, as amicus curiae.

Devine, Millimet & Branch, P.A., of Concord (Paula T. Rogers and Holly J. Kilibarda on the brief), for The Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, as amicus curiae.

William K.S. Lim, Yuen Sim N.G. Lim and Dharma Lim filed no brief.

DALIANIS, J. The respondent, United National Insurance Company (UNIC), appeals from the order of the Superior Court (Morrill, J.) granting partial summary judgment to the petitioner Grand China, Inc. (Grand China). We affirm. The trial court found as follows: Grand China is a restaurant in Salem, owned and operated by petitioners William K.S. Lim, Yuen Sim N.G. Lim and Dharma Lim. For more than twenty-five years, the Lims have purchased liability insurance through the intervenor, Michals Insurance Agency, Inc. (Michals). UNIC, a surplus lines insurer, provided Grand China's liquor liability policy. The relevant policy period was July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004, and the policy required UNIC to give Grand China ten days written notice of cancellation. On November 12, 2003, UNIC sent a notice of cancellation to Grand China, stating its intent to cancel the policy effective December 1, 2003, for "non-payment and underwriting reasons." Thereafter, UNIC issued a cancellation endorsement, purporting to cancel the policy, and returned the unused premium. On December 13, 2003, a patron of Grand China allegedly caused an accident in which one person was killed and another injured. Both the injured party and the estate of the deceased party sued Grand China, alleging a breach of a duty of care by serving alcohol to the patron. Grand China provided timely notice of the suit to UNIC; however, UNIC denied coverage, claiming that it had cancelled the policy before the December 13 accident. Grand China then filed a declaratory judgment petition seeking a determination that UNIC is obligated to defend and indemnify it. Grand China moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that UNIC's cancellation of the policy was ineffective because it was not sent sixty days before the purported cancellation date, as required by RSA 417-C:2 (2006). The trial court ruled in Grand China's favor, and this appeal followed. In reviewing the superior court's summary judgment rulings, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and, if no 2

genuine issue of material fact exists, we determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. N.H. Ins. Guaranty Assoc. v. Elliot Hosp., 154 N.H. 571, 574 (2006). We review a trial court's application of law to facts de novo. Gordonville Corp. v. LR1-A Ltd. P'ship, 151 N.H. 371, 373 (2004). In matters of statutory interpretation we are the final arbiter of the legislature's intent as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole. Id. When examining the language of a statute, we ascribe the plain and ordinary meaning to the words used. Blagbrough Family Realty Trust v. A & T Forest Prods., 155 N.H. 29, 33 (2007). We do not consider words and phrases in isolation, but rather within the context of the statute as a whole. Gordonville Corp., 151 N.H. at 373. This enables us to better discern the legislature's intent and to interpret statutory language in light of the policy or purpose sought to be advanced by the statutory scheme. Id. When interpreting two statutes that deal with a similar subject matter, we construe them so that they do not contradict each other, and so that they will lead to reasonable results and effectuate the legislative purpose of the statutes. Soraghan v. Mt. Cranmore Ski Resort, 152 N.H. 399, 405 (2005). RSA chapter 417-C (2006) governs the cancellation of commercial insurance. The chapter specifically exempts "workers' compensation policies or any policies provided and controlled by RSA 417-A or RSA 417-B." RSA 417C:6. Neither party claims that surplus lines insurance is governed by either RSA chapter 417-A (2006) or RSA chapter 417-B (2006), nor is the policy in question a worker's compensation policy. RSA 417-C:2, I, provides in pertinent part: "No notice of cancellation of a . . . liability policy . . . shall be effective unless mailed . . . at least 60 days prior to the effective date of cancellation . . . . " The plain meaning of this statute is that, unless otherwise exempted, all liability insurers must comply with the sixty-day notice provision. UNIC's policy with Grand China covered liquor liability and, thus, was a liability policy within the meaning of the statute. Having failed to give sixty days notice of the policy cancellation, UNIC must defend and indemnify Grand China against claims arising out of the December 13, 2003 incident. UNIC argues that it is exempt from RSA 417-C:2 because, as a surplus lines insurer, it has a special status under insurance laws. "Surplus lines insurance is often a source of last resort," 1 E. Holmes & M. Rhodes, Holmes' Appleman on Insurance 2d

Download 2007-179, GRAND CHINA, INC. & a. v. UNITED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY.pdf

New Hampshire Law