Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cecere v. Aetna Insurance

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided January 16, 2001No. 97-882Published

1DissentHorton, J.

The majority negates the effect of RSA 264:15, I, on coverage of an automobile principally garaged in this State by invoking conflict of laws rules to import the Massachusetts law regulating coverage for the risk. The majority finds an implicit choice of law in the policy and finds that, by the nature of the garage policy coverage, all covered risks, or at least in totality the dominant risk, is a Massachusetts risk. From this analysis, the majority insulates the coverage afforded from New Hampshire regulation of a uniquely New Hampshire piece of that risk. I disagree with both the principle…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Consolidated Mutual Insurance v. Radio Foods Corp.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1968
  2. Turner v. St. Paul Property & Liability InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1996
  3. Peerless Insurance v. GouldSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1960

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API