Alfano Law Office, PLLC

  • ALFANO LAW WEBSITE
Home » Keene Auto Body v. State Farm

Keene Auto Body v. State Farm

ATTENTION INSURANCE COMPANIES! It’s time to look closely at those anti-assignment clauses

The New Hampshire Supreme Court (the “Court”) recently issued an opinion that will have insurance companies taking a much closer look at their anti-assignment clauses. In a controversial decision handed down November 15, 2022, the Court addressed the appeal of an order granting Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss an action brought by Plaintiff Keene Auto Body (“Plaintiff”) for failure to cover the full costs of repairs to a vehicle.

The case in controversy began when Caleb Meagher (the “insured”) brought his vehicle into Plaintiff’s auto repair shop to fix the covered damage his vehicle sustained in an accident. (The vehicle was insured by Defendant). Defendant and Plaintiff each provided the insured with an estimate of costs. However, Plaintiff’s estimate was higher and included some repairs that Defendant’s estimate did not. Without obtaining approval from Defendant, the insured instructed Plaintiff to perform the repairs in accordance with its estimate. When Defendant refused to pay the extra costs, the insured assigned his rights under the insurance policy to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff sued Defendant to obtain the balance.

The Defendants argued that the anti-assignment clause contained in the insurance policy prevented the insured from assigning his rights under the policy to Plaintiff. In addressing this argument the Court began by interpreting the clause, which read: No assignment of benefits or other transfer of rights is binding upon us unless approved by us. Defendant argued that the term “benefits” not only applies to pre-loss attributes enjoyed by the insured but also to post-loss rights and claims as well. Additionally, Defendant noted the policy’s broad prohibition on “transfer of rights” included no qualifying language, meaning it should be read to include any and all possible legal rights afforded to an insured. The Court agreed with these points, finding Defendant’s reading of the clause reasonable.

However, the Court also found merit in Plaintiff’s interpretation of the policy provision, which summarized that the anti-assignment clause only applied to pre-loss assignments, while post-loss assignments of benefits and rights were acceptable.  The Court explained that the purpose of an anti-assignment clause in an insurance policy context is to protect the insurer from increased liability. However, once the loss has already been realized and the insurer’s liability is established, the insurer’s risk cannot be increased by a change in the insured’s identity, and a reasonable insured would interpret the anti-assignment provision as such. The Court found that the parties differing interpretations of the clause demonstrated a reasonable disagreement and therefore must be construed against the insurer, in favor of the insured, and subsequently reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The Court did note that it would express no opinion as to whether an unambiguous clause prohibiting the assignment of post-loss claims would be enforceable, leaving the insurance industry in a state of flux regarding how to handle anti-assignment clauses going forward. It could be that a more specific and detailed clause could serve to prohibit both pre- and post-loss assignments, however, it could also be that the Court will now hold all post-loss anti-assignment provisions invalid in general. We will just have to wait and see.

You can contact Alfano Law Office at (603) 856-8411 or at this link.

Filed Under: Court Updates

The above information is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

NH Tax Abatement

  • Road Law Guide
  • NH Tax Abatement
    • Grounds for Abatement
    • Municipal Application
    • Owners of Properties Outside New Hampshire
    • Transfer Tax Allocation
    • Recent Laws and Rulings
  • Resources and Links
    • Calendar and Key Dates
    • Equalization Ratio
    • NAPTA

NH Real Estate Law Articles

  • Airbnb
  • Common Neighborly Legal Issues
  • Court Updates
  • Dealing with Neighbors
  • Easements
  • Estate Planning
  • General
  • Historic Designation
  • Legal Documents
  • Legal Terms
  • Legislation
    • Business Law
  • Living Trust
  • New Hampshire Property Tax Alerts
  • Private Road Maintenance
  • Private Roads
  • Property
  • Property Investments
  • Property Rights
  • Property Tax
  • Property Tax Law
  • Quieting Title
  • Real Estate Law
  • Revocable Trust
  • Road Law
  • Tax Abatement
  • Taxes
  • Zoning Boards of Adjustments

Recent Articles

NH Supreme Court Upholds Variance Granted by Housing Authority Board that Reversed a Rejection by Town Zoning Board

The New Hampshire Supreme Court (the “Court”) recently … [Read More...]

What is Probate and How Do I Avoid It?

What is Probate? Probate is the court-supervised legal … [Read More...]

Private Road Maintenance 6-Part Series

Navigating the world of private road maintenance?  We are … [Read More...]

The Landscaping Wall in the Buffer Zone

The Landscaping Wall in the Buffer Zone: A Look at the … [Read More...]

Article Archives

Alfano Law Office, PLLC, 4 Park Street, Concord, NH 03301 USA | Phone: (603) 856-8411
Copyright © 2023 · Alfano Law Office, PLLC. All Rights Reserved · Website design by InterActive Synergy, LLC