New Hampshire
How Cleveland v. New Hampshire Insurance Co. applies in New Hampshire: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Insurance Law.
New Hampshire law generally follows the principles established in Cleveland v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., particularly regarding the interpretation of insurance coverage and the duty to defend. The court emphasizes the importance of the policy's terms and conditions when determining the insurer's obligations.
Insurers have a duty to defend their insured against any claim that could potentially fall within the coverage of the policy, even if such claims are ultimately found to fall outside of coverage.
The court reaffirmed the duty of insurers to provide a defense when allegations are made that could be reasonably construed to be covered by the policy.
The court ruled that ambiguous policy language must be interpreted in favor of the insured, upholding the principle from Cleveland.
Established that the insurer’s duty to defend is broader than its duty to indemnify, consistent with the holding in Cleveland.
New Hampshire's approach mirrors the federal standard concerning the duty to defend, which is generally broader than the duty to indemnify. However, New Hampshire places a particular emphasis on the specificity of the policy language, which may vary from other jurisdictions.
Cleveland v. New Hampshire Insurance Co. is frequently cited in New Hampshire bar exam questions regarding insurance law, particularly in the context of the insurer's obligations.