Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Langevin v. Travco Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

March 30, 2018

BRIAN LANGEVIN & a.
v.
TRAVCO INSURANCE COMPANY

          Argued: September 27, 2017

          Backus, Meyer & Branch, LLP, of Manchester (BJ Branch on the brief and orally), for the plaintiffs.

          Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer PC, of Manchester (Doreen F. Connor on the brief and orally), for the defendant.

          Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C., of Concord (Megan Douglass on the brief), for the New Hampshire Association for Justice, as amicus curiae.

          BASSETT, J.

         The plaintiffs, Brian and Nancy Langevin, appeal an order of the Superior Court (Brown, J.) denying their motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to the defendant, Travco Insurance Company (Travco). The trial court ruled that the plaintiffs were not entitled to payment from Travco under their medical payments coverage to pay a lien asserted by the plaintiffs' health insurer because such payment would constitute a "duplicate payment" contrary to the language of both RSA 264:16, IV (2014) and the plaintiffs' automobile insurance policy with Travco. We reverse and remand.

         The following relevant facts are derived from the trial court's order or are otherwise undisputed. On October 4, 2014, the plaintiffs were injured in a motor vehicle accident. At the time of the accident, the plaintiffs had health insurance coverage through Aetna. They also had an automobile insurance policy with Travco that included medical payments coverage of $25, 000 per person. That policy provides:

         A. We will pay reasonable expenses incurred for necessary medical and funeral services because of "bodily injury":

1.Caused by accident; and
2.Sustained by an "insured."

         The policy also includes an endorsement that modifies the medical payments coverage and provides that:

B. No one will be entitled to receive duplicate payments for the same elements of loss under this coverage and a health insurance policy.

         Similarly, RSA 264:16, governing medical payments coverage in automobile liability policies, provides:

IV. The insured shall have the exclusive right to submit a claim for medical expenses under either medical payments coverage or a health insurance policy or both, as the insured elects; provided, however, an insured shall not be entitled to duplicate payment from medical payments ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.