Court Opinion

ID: 9752317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:57:36.777744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:13.800135
License: Public Domain

Grimes, J.,
dissenting:
RSA 268:16 II provides that “the policy, the written application therefor, if any, and any rider or endorsement, which shall not conflict with the provisions of this chapter, shall with the provisions of this section and any other applicable statutes constitute the entire contract between the parties.” (Emphasis added.) It is clear therefore that the endorsement excluding James Vigue from coverage is valid unless it conflicts with some provision of RSA ch. 268. The fact that in the body of the policy itself, Vigue, as spouse of the named insured, would be an insured does not prevent him from being expressly excluded by the endorsement unless it conflicts with the statute.
Nowhere in the statutes cited by the court is there any requirement that, with respect to the owned automobile, the spouse must be covered. Such a provision is included in RSA 268:1 VII (b) *496(Supp. 1973) as to nonowned vehicles, but it is conspicuously absent from any other part of the statute. I can reach no other conclusion but that the endorsement is effective as to this accident and that the policy does not provide coverage.