Court Opinion

ID: 9710826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:18:35.393936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:00.116625
License: Public Domain

Blandin, J.,
dissenting: The law in this state from time immemorial has been that an insurance policy means what a reasonable *227person in tbe position of the insured would understand it meant. Terrien v. Company, 96 N. H. 182, 186, and cases cited. Here the policy provided that the defendant company would pay the insured for “any loss or damage” to his property “by fire originating from any cause except invasion, foreign enemies, civil commotions, riots or military or usurped power . . . .” (Emphasis supplied). It would be difficult, if not impossible, for the company to promise to pay for the loss here in any plainer terms than these. There is nothing in the policy excluding losses due to “friendly fires” or fires restricted to the place where they are supposed to be or anything of the sort. Nor is there any suggestion that only losses caused by “hostile fires” are covered. The insurer wrote the policy and could have inserted these conditions and exclusions as well as those which it did insert had it so desired.
It is not seriously disputed here that a reasonable man in the position .of the insured would understand the policy covered the losses, but in spite of this he is denied recovery, although there is no authority in this state, legislative or judicial for so doing, because courts in other jurisdictions have established a rule which it seems in fairness and reason neither this opinion nor other authorities convincingly defend. I recognize that a doctrine supported by the majority as is the “friendly fire” doctrine should not be lightly overthrown. But even the authorities which uphold it are apologetic, and notwithstanding their number, none of them have come forward with a really good reason for their position — which it appears is a strong indication that none exists. The rule has been attacked with vigor and logic and even overthrown elsewhere. Salmon v. Concordia Fire Insurance Co. (La. App.) 161 So. 340; see also, Vance, Friendly Fires, 1 Conn. B. J. 284. Our courts have held that the reason for a rule, rather than the number of jurisdictions which support it, should control. There seems no more cause in justice or logic to road into this policy the “friendly fire” exception than there was to read in a “friendly vehicle” exception in the liability policy in the case of Golding-Keene Co. v. Insurance Co., 96 N. H. 64. There we were confronted with the same argument as here, and we rejected it in no uncertain terms. Id., 68. We are not faced with adverse precedents as in Nashua Trust Co. v. Mosgofian, 97 N. H. 17, but rather our precedents would all support a plaintiff’s verdict here. It seems to me in denying recovery the opinion does the very thing which it says cannot be done. It does rewrite the policy giving it a meaning which it never had under our law because our law *228would interpret it as the reasonable man in the position of the insured and would hold that coverage exists.
In conclusion, I do not believe we should deny recovery and overrule one of the fairest and best principles in our law for a 'foreign doctrine which has little in the way of justice or reason to commend it. Nor do I see any good reason to wait for the Legislature to do what we can do ourselves merely by following the tenor of the long and- hitherto unbroken line of our own decisions.
Lampeón, J., concurred in this opinion.