Opinion ID: 1963959
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The county.

Text: There are also essentially three issues raised concerning coverage by the county's insurance policy. As with respect to the city's policy, plaintiff argues that the alleged negligence against the county falls within the terms of the professional services exclusion contained in an endorsement to the policy. This endorsement provides that the insurance does not apply to bodily injury or property damage due to 1. the rendering of or failure to render (a) medical, surgical, dental, X-ray or nursing service or treatment, or the furnishing of food or beverages in connection therewith; (b) any service or treatment conducive to health or of a professional nature; ... [4] As with the city, the alleged negligence on the part of the county in failing to provide Craig Nichols with medical and psychiatric care, and its alleged negligence in failing to deliver him to the care and custody of the New Hampshire State Hospital would, if proved, amount to failures to render professional services. Therefore, if Craig Nichols' suicide was due to such failures, the county's insurance policy provides no coverage because of this professional services exclusion. [5] This exclusion does not apply, however, to the alleged negligence on the part of the county's agents in failing to provide Craig Nichols with constant supervision while he was in their custody. No professional training or skills covered by the exclusion were required for the county's agents to determine that Craig Nichols would commit acts of violence upon himself if left without supervision. Nor were such professional skills or training required to provide him with the supervision which it is alleged should have been provided. Therefore, this duty and the breach thereof alleged by intervenor are not excluded from the county's policy coverage by virtue of the professional services endorsement. [6] For the same reasons discussed with respect to the city's policy, the fact that Craig Nichols' suicide may have been intentional from his standpoint does not make it intentional from the standpoint of the county, the insured under this policy. If, as is alleged, Craig Nichols' suicide was caused by negligence on the part of the county's agents, his violence to himself and resulting death must be considered an accident within the definition of occurrence contained in the county's policy. The policy therefore provides coverage if intervenor proves her allegations. [7] The final argument advanced by plaintiff with respect to the county's policy is that the county jail is not one of the premises covered. Intervenor argues that the asylums in Boscawen, New Hampshire, included in the list of Premises-Operations hazards, refers to the county jail. Plaintiff provides no alternative explanation for this term. Although we assume the term refers to the jail, we refrain from so holding. Rather, this is a question of fact to be determined in the trial court. 1 G. Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law § 15:3 (2d ed. 1959). Our answer to transferred question No. 2 is therefore Yes. If the term asylums does refer to the county jail, general liability policy GO-18522 provides coverage to the county of Merrimack for the negligence of the county in failing to provide Craig W. J. Nichols with constant supervision and for his resulting suicide, as is complained of in the wrongful death action brought by intervenor. If the term asylums does not refer to the county jail, then there is no coverage under this policy. [8] Intervenor concedes that to the extent the insurance policies involved do not provide coverage, transferred question No. 3 must be answered affirmatively. RSA 412:3 (Supp. 1975) provides for a waiver of sovereign immunity to the extent any municipal subdivision, including cities and counties, has acquired insurance against the risk involved when damages result from the performance of governmental functions. The events in question took place prior to July 1, 1975, the effective date of Merrill v. Manchester, 114 N.H. 722, 332 A.2d 378 (1974), abolishing sovereign immunity for cities and towns. Except for the provisions of RSA 412:3 (Supp. 1975), the immunity of counties from liability has not been abrogated by judicial decision or otherwise, and intervenor does not argue that we should do so in the context of this case. Our answer to transferred question No. 3 is Yes, the action against the city of Concord must be dismissed. No the action against the county of Merrimack need not be dismissed insofar as it is covered by insurance. Remanded.