Morrison Mahoney Partner Brian Suslak and Associate Leona Sharpstene recently obtained a defense verdict after a five-day Underinsured Motorists Coverage trial in the United States District Court, District of New Hampshire.
Plaintiffs, a husband and wife, were involved in a serious motor vehicle accident in August 2021 while on vacation in Maine. The wife was driving the car at the time of the accident and sustained serious injuries. The husband sustained some minor soft tissue injuries, but was not seriously hurt. His only claim in the lawsuit was for loss of consortium. Plaintiffs settled pre-suit with the at-fault driver.
After doing so, the plaintiffs presented UIM claims to our insurer client, which was the plaintiffs’ auto insurer, as well as their umbrella liability insurer, seeking underinsured motorist coverage above the amount paid by the at-fault driver. Both carriers took the position that the plaintiffs had been adequately compensated by the at-fault driver and did not have a viable underinsured motorist claim. Plaintiffs filed suit against both insurers in June 2025. The Complaint alleged counts of breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against both insurers, and sought attorneys’ fees. The parties agreed to stay the “bad faith” claims pending a determination of whether the plaintiffs had a viable UIM claim.
After filing suit, the plaintiffs’ claims expanded beyond the accident-related injuries to include other post-accident medical procedures, as was the plaintiffs’ decision to enroll in a high-end independent living facility.
Despite evidence showing that the plaintiffs did not have a viable UIM claim against either carrier, the plaintiffs declined several settlement offers after mediating twice. At trial, the credibility of the plaintiffs, as well as their orthopedic expert, were undermined on cross-examination and through the extensive medical records presented to the jury.
At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, the defendants jointly decided to forego putting on a defense case, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy their burden of proof. The court elected to proceed immediately to closing arguments. The court also heard arguments from the parties on the scope of damages for the jury to decide, and further narrowed the scope of the damages that the plaintiffs could request in jury instructions.
After approximately 3 hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict awarding the plaintiff wife significantly less than what she recovered from the at-fault driver and awarding the plaintiff husband no damages for his loss of consortium claim. As a result, the plaintiffs recovered nothing from either our client insurer or the co-defendant insurer.
