Justia New Hampshire Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal from the superior court that partially granted and partially denied the summary judgment motion filed by Defendants Lakes Region Water Company and Thomas Mason (collectively LRWC). The question before the Court was whether the superior court erred in concluding that Defendants were not exempt from the Consumer Protection Act to the extent that they allegedly misrepresented that the water they provided was safe for use and consumption. Answering in the affirmative, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s denial of partial summary judgment as to the claims of the plaintiffs Jo Anne Rainville, Carl Beher, Lisa Mullins d/b/a The Olde Village Store, and approximately fifty others, under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) which sought damages for alleged misrepresentations about the quality of water provided. View "Rainville v. Lakes Region Water Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Josephine Lamprey appealed a superior court order that dismissed her against Defendants, Britton Construction, Inc. (Britton), DeStefano Architects, PLLC f/k/a Lisa B. DeStefano (DeStefano) and Dave Sherwood, pursuant to the statutes of limitations and repose. Plaintiff hired the defendants to design and build her home. DeStefano was the architect; Britton was the general contractor; and Sherwood was the mason who installed the home’s extensive stonework, including a stone veneer, terrace and stone chimneys. Plaintiff began living in the house in November 2001, but never obtained a certificate of occupancy. Within one year, water damage appeared on the wood floors. In 2006, Plaintiff hired Sherwood to repair loose stones on her terrace. In 2010, when Plaintiff replaced her stone terrace with granite, the mason in charge of the replacement noticed problems with the home’s stonework requiring significant repairs. As a result, Plaintiff sued the defendants, alleging negligence and breaches of warranty in her home’s construction. Britton requested dismissal pursuant to the statute of limitations for personal actions. Sherwood moved to dismiss, arguing that the construction statute of repose also barred Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff responded by arguing, among other things, that the statutes should be tolled because Sherwood had fraudulently concealed her home’s masonry problems. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part. The trial court properly dismissed all claims against Destefano. Although the trial court properly dismissed the claims against Britton and Sherwood initially, "it unsustainably exercised its discretion by not permitting Plaintiff to amend her writ to add fraudulent concealment allegations related to the bent masonry ties that concealed defects in her home’s stone veneer. Plaintiff’s amended claims against Britton and Sherwood related to the stone veneer were allowed. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Lamprey v. Britton Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

Respondent Norris Viviers appealed an order of the family division which ruled his obligation to pay alimony to Petitioner Karen Schaulin-Viviers could not be modified because the parties agreed to a lump-sum payment. Finding that certain aspects of the parties' agreement and conduct created an ambiguity as to whether the alimony awarded was alimony in gross or periodic alimony, the Supreme Court construed the alimony as being periodic and not lump sum. Accordingly, the Court vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of Viviers " on Justia Law

Petitioner Donald Gentry appealed a superior court decision that denied his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The trial court held that Petitioner (an offender whose parole was revoked) was not entitled to receive credit against his ninety-day term of recommitment to prison imposed pursuant to RSA 651-A:19 for the period between his arrest and the revocation of his parole. Because the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that RSA 651-A:19 did not permit the parole board to credit the time the petitioner spent in confinement between his arrest and revocation of his parole against his ninety-day recommitment period, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Gentry v. Warden, Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility " on Justia Law

Petitioner Lachlan MacLearn and Intervenor Simon Hutchings appealed a superior court order that denied their motion for summary judgment. Petitioner was driving his 2006 Prius when he was involved in an accident with Hutchings. At the time of the accident, Petitioner also owned a 2000 Audi A6 that was insured by Respondent Commerce Insurance Company. Hutchings sued Petitioner for damages from his injuries. Hutchings made a demand upon Commerce for defense and indemnification. Commerce denied the claim, stating that coverage was barred by the terms of the policy it held on Petitioner's Audi. Petitioner petitioned for a declaratory judgment that Commerce was obligated to defend and indemnify him against Hutchings' suit. The trial court granted Commerce's motion and denied Hutchings', finding the policy barred coverage. Upon review of the policy and the arguments submitted by the parties, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court, finding the policy did not cover Petitioner's use of the Prius, nor grant him indemnification from Commerce for the accident arising out of his use of it. View "MacLearn v. Commerce Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant Daniel Bent was convicted by a jury on one count of second degree assault and three counts of reckless conduct. In 2007, the superior curt sentenced him to three to six years in the state prison, and ordered him to pay restitution, plus a statutory administrative fee. The victim of the assault brought a civil suit against Defendant, his employer and the employer's insurance carrier. The parties came to a settlement agreement. In 2010, Defendant moved the court to vacate the restitution order as a result of the settlement reached in his case. Following a hearing, the court denied his motion. After a request for clarification of its order, the court set an amount for restitution. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in setting the amount of restitution because the State did not meet its burden of demonstrating the amount of the victim's economic loss that could be attributed to the assault. Furthermore, Defendant argued that even if the record supported the amount set, the trial court erred in setting an amount without determining whether it would be a double recovery to the victim. Finding that the trial court had not determined the amount of restitution to be set in Defendant's case, nor whether any portion of that amount would result in a double recovery to the victim, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "New Hampshire v. Bent " on Justia Law

Respondent, the father of "Haley K.," appealed a family division order that terminated his parental rights. He argued that the trial court erred in finding the State provided reasonable services for his reunification with the child. Finding that Respondent failed to make adequate provisions for his child's care and support during his incarceration ("respondent's physical unavailability did not absolve him of his parental obligation to provide for the care of his child"), the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision terminating his parental rights. View "In re Haley K. " on Justia Law

Respondent A&J Beverage Distribution, Inc. appealed decisions of the Department of Labor (DOL) brought under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act by Petitioner Kevin Perrier. Petitioner worked for A&J as a truck driver. When he first started working, Petitioner did not participate in the company health plan. When premiums increased, Petitioner opted out of the plan. In 2009, rates decreased, and Petitioner claimed he was not informed of the decrease. When he sought information on the plan at that time, the company refused to give it to him. Petitioner notified the company that he had contacted the federal Department of Labor to learn more about his rights under ERISA with regard to notification of the company health plan. A&J then gave Petitioner the requested information, but shortly thereafter, he was terminated. The New Hampshire DOL hearing officer ruled that Petitioner "sustained his burden of proof to show that he was discharged in retaliation for having exercised his legitimate rights under the law." On appeal, A&J asserted preemption: that the whistleblower claim was preempted by ERISA. Upon review, the Supreme Court vacated the DOL's decision: "while the petitioner correctly notes that state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over actions... his whistleblower claim is not such an action. ... [the Court] reject[ed] the petitioner's argument that DOL had jurisdiction over the petitioner's ERISA claim." View "Appeal of A&J Beverage Distribution, Inc. " on Justia Law

Defendant Patricia Smith appealed a superior court's decision to deny her motion to suppress evidence. She was charged with one felony county of manufacturing marijuana, and moved to suppress evidence obtained when police searched her property after an informant tipped police that she was growing marijuana plants in her house. Defendant argued that police violated Part I, Article 19 of the State Constitution because they entered the curtilage of her home without first obtaining a warrant. Furthermore, she argued that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the wooded area behind her home because of its close proximity to the house itself and because police did not make their observations from a public vantage point. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the information contained within the four corners of the warrant application provided probable cause to support Defendant's search warrant. The Court affirmed the superior court's decision. View "New Hampshire v. Smith " on Justia Law

Plaintiff Michael Silverstein appealed the decision of the New Hampshire Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB) which declined to exercise jurisdiction over his unfair labor practice complaint against Defendant Andover School Board (School). In May 2010, Plaintiff, a physical education teacher at the Andover Elementary/Middle School, signed an employment contract that reduced him from a full-time (five days per week) employee to a four days per week employee, cut his salary by approximately $7000, and increased his costs for health insurance. Later, pursuant to a three-step grievance process in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) governing his employment, Plaintiff initiated a grievance against his employer arising out of the reduction. The PELRB concluded that it lacked jurisdiction "to interpret the Andover CBA and decide the merits of Mr. Silverstein's complaint during the grievance proceedings and after the grievance proceedings are completed." Subsequently, the PELRB denied Plaintiff's motion for a rehearing. The Supreme Court "explicitly reiterated" that the PELRB has no authority to interpret a CBA or review the merits of a grievance when the CBA to which the parties are subject includes a final and binding grievance process internal to the employer, and affirmed the PELRB's decision. View "Appeal of Michael Silverstein " on Justia Law