Opinion ID: 422027
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Coverage for Loss of Consortium

Text: 28 There remains the question of coverage for Cathy Morehouse's loss-of-consortium claim. Allstate denies coverage, claiming that the policy only covers bodily injury, and that a claim for loss of consortium is not a claim for bodily injury under Bean v. Miller, 122 N.H. 681, 684, 448 A.2d 424, 426 (1982). We agree. 29 Although the policy obligates Allstate to defend and pay all sums which the Insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury (emphasis added), it does not obligate Allstate to cover suits brought by third parties for losses occasioned by a covered bodily injury to another person. In addition, the policy definition limits bodily injury to bodily injury, sickness or disease, and does not cover loss of services related to such an injury. The authorities cited by Diamond are therefore distinguishable. American Asbestos Textile Corp. v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., 114 N.H. 806, 808, 330 A.2d 451, 453 (1974) (loss of consortium covered where policy defined coverage to include damages for care and loss of services and damages for which the insured is liable by reason of suits ... brought by others to recover ... damages ... because of such bodily injury sustained by [covered] employees) (emphasis added); I. Long, The Law of Liability Insurance § 4.25 (coverage cannot be restricted to those persons actually suffering bodily injury [w]hen the controlling words of the policy are 'damages on account of bodily injuries or death suffered by any person or persons as a result of an accident (emphasis added). 9 See also Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Yeroyan, 90 N.H. 145, 146, 5 A.2d 726, 727 (1939) (loss of consortium covered where policy covered all sums which the assured shall become obligated to pay by reason of the liability imposed upon him by law for damages accidentally suffered by any person on account of bodily injuries, 'including loss of services in consequence of such injuries' ) (emphasis added). 30 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Each side will bear its own costs on this appeal.