Opinion ID: 197635
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Court Order to Indemnify the Insured

Text: 28 Finally, United National argues that even if the exclusions do not apply to Burke's tort claims, the district court acted prematurely when it ordered United National to indemnify the insured before a trial. The insurance company argues that [i]t is currently unknown precisely what the evidence will be concerning the encounter, and that it was error to assume that the evidence will be as it has been presented in discovery. This argument lacks any support in law. The New Hampshire Supreme Court, as a matter of course, affirms court orders to indemnify that are issued before trial. See, e.g., Trefethen v. New Hampshire Ins. Group, 138 N.H. 710, 645 A.2d 72, 75 (1994) (affirming declaratory judgment that insurer had duty to defend and indemnify claims); White Mountain Constr. Co. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 137 N.H. 478, 631 A.2d 907, 910 (1993) (same). 29 If Burke prevails at trial, and we have determined that no exclusions in the policy apply, United National simply cannot avoid its obligation. Federal courts cannot limit their rulings in anticipation of potential surprise revelations during trial. If, in fact, some heretofore unanticipated development during trial negates the rationale of this or any judgment, the affected party may file a Motion for Relief From Judgment or Order in accordance with Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, we will not refrain from affirming an order awarding indemnification for insurance claims on summary judgment where all available facts and law indicate that such an order is appropriate. 30 For the reasons stated herein, the district court's award for summary judgment and order for the defense and indemnification of Thomas Burke's claims is affirmed.