Joseph A. Santos v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that a personal excess liability policy's UIM endorsement conflicted with RSA 264:15, I, because it purported to make specified underlying UIM coverage a precondition to excess UIM benefits while excess liability coverage remained available despite insufficient underlying insurance. The court held that the statutory requirement that excess policies provide UIM coverage equal to the limits of liability purchased invalidated the precondition. Metropolitan was therefore liable for excess UIM benefits to the extent and in the amount it would have been liable had Santos maintained the required underlying UIM limits.

Holdings

1. The excess UIM endorsement's use of the term "precondition" plainly created a condition precedent to the availability of excess UIM benefits.
2. The endorsement and Section III, paragraph 7 were in direct conflict, and the endorsement controlled over the conflicting policy-form provision; the conflict did not create an ambiguity.
3. The precondition violated RSA 264:15, I because it made excess UIM coverage unavailable in circumstances in which the policy provided excess motor-vehicle liability coverage.
4. The invalid precondition had no effect, but the remaining policy provisions remained enforceable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the excess UIM endorsement's requirement that Santos maintain specified underlying insurance was a valid condition precedent allowing Metropolitan to deny all excess UIM benefits.
2. Whether the endorsement conflicted with Section III, paragraph 7 of the policy, which limited Metropolitan's liability but did not permit it to deny benefits entirely when required underlying coverage was not maintained.
3. Whether the endorsement's precondition violated RSA 264:15, I by making excess UIM coverage unavailable in circumstances in which excess motor-vehicle liability coverage remained available.
4. Whether the invalid precondition rendered the remaining policy provisions unenforceable.

Disposition

affirmed