Opinion ID: 2375738
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: St. Paul's Coverage

Text: The question remains whether St. Paul's policy also provides coverage to Cowan and Deachman. On the issue of St. Paul's liability, the trial court stated: [T]he St. Paul policy covered all parts of the premises used by Wallshein for restaurant purpose, and this includes the attic area of the premises. The fact that the attic area was not specifically defined as a part of the leased premises does not mean that it was not covered by the St. Paul policy inasmuch as it would be reasonably expected by both the landlord and the tenant that an attic storage area would be used by the tenant when the tenant leases the two floors below the attic. (Emphasis added.) As noted previously, an alleged defect in the premises and not a restaurant operation caused the injury to Miss Schofield. St. Paul's restaurant operations coverage, therefore, cannot be held to afford coverage in the instant situation. But St. Paul's policy also affords restaurant premises coverage. If the attic and trap door are properly considered within the scope of the term restaurant premises, coverage will follow. [5] In our opinion, the trial court correctly applied the reasonable expectations rule in determining that St. Paul's premises insurance covered the attic area, and hence the trap door. Olszak v. Peerless Insurance Co., 119 N.H. 636, 406 A.2d 711 (1979); Atwood v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 116 N.H. 636, 365 A.2d 744 (1976). On the facts presented, a reasonable person in the position of the additional insureds Cowan and Deachman would surely have expected coverage under a restaurant premises policy for accidents occurring on the premises in an area where it was reasonably foreseeable that restaurant operations would be carried on. The trial court's finding that St. Paul could reasonably have anticipated that certain restaurant activities would be carried on outside the 1,200 square feet of the main restaurant area is supported by the record. The court's ruling respecting St. Paul's liability was therefore correct, and St. Paul's exceptions to it are overruled. Exceptions sustained in part and overruled in part.