UM/UIM Demand Letter - New Hampshire

UM/UIM (UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST) DEMAND LETTER

State of New Hampshire

[LAW FIRM LETTERHEAD]

SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION — FOR RESOLUTION PURPOSES ONLY
ADMISSIBILITY GOVERNED BY NEW HAMPSHIRE RULE OF EVIDENCE 408

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND VIA EMAIL TO: [________________________________]

Date: [__/__/____]

[INSURANCE COMPANY NAME]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________], NH [________]

Attention: [________________________________], [________________________________]
Re: UM/UIM POLICY LIMITS DEMAND — NEW HAMPSHIRE
Insured/Claimant: [________________________________]
Policy Number: [________________________________]
Claim Number: [________________________________]
Date of Loss: [__/__/____]
UM/UIM Policy Limits: $[________________________________]
Tortfeasor: [________________________________]
Tortfeasor's Carrier: [________________________________]
Tortfeasor's Limits: $[________________________________]
Response Deadline: [__/__/____] at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time

Dear [________________________________]:

I. INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF DEMAND

This firm represents [________________________________] ("our client") in connection with a claim for [UNINSURED / UNDERINSURED] motorist benefits under New Hampshire law arising from a motor vehicle collision on [__/__/____]. This letter constitutes a formal demand for payment of the full UM/UIM policy limits of $[________________________________].

Our client's damages substantially exceed the available coverage from the at-fault driver. For policies within RSA 264:15, New Hampshire requires UM coverage designed to place insured persons in the same position they would have occupied if the offending motorist had comparable liability insurance. See Pelissier v. GEICO General Insurance Co., 2024 N.H. 60, ¶ 10.

II. NEW HAMPSHIRE UM/UIM LAW — CRITICAL PROVISIONS

A. Mandatory Equal-Limits Rule — RSA 264:15

Under RSA 264:15, a covered New Hampshire motor-vehicle policy must include uninsured-motorist coverage at least at the statutory bodily-injury limits. When an insured purchases liability limits above the minimum, the UM coverage automatically equals the elected liability limits. The statute does not state a written-rejection procedure for reducing ordinary automobile-policy UM limits below the elected liability limits. It separately permits the named insured to reject, in writing, equal-limit UM coverage in an umbrella or excess policy.

The New Hampshire minimum liability limits under RSA 259:61 are:

• $25,000 per person / $50,000 per occurrence for bodily injury
• $25,000 for property damage

If [CARRIER SHORT NAME] issued an ordinary automobile policy with liability limits above these minimums, counsel should compare the declarations and full policy against RSA 264:15's automatic equal-limits requirement. If umbrella or excess coverage is involved, obtain and review any written rejection applicable to that coverage.

We hereby assert that our client's UM/UIM limits equal the liability limits on this policy pursuant to RSA 264:15.

B. Stacking of UM/UIM Coverage

New Hampshire generally recognizes inter-policy stacking—combining applicable coverage under multiple policies. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Holyoke Mutual Insurance Co., 150 N.H. 527, 841 A.2d 68 (2004). Multiple vehicles listed on one policy present intra-policy stacking, a different issue. Clear and unambiguous policy language may limit stacking, so counsel must identify every potentially applicable policy and review its other-insurance and anti-stacking terms. RSA 264:15 does not prescribe a written waiver of stacking.

Stacking Analysis:

C. 2024 Pelissier Ruling — Contractual Limitations on UM/UIM Claims

The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that a three-year UIM contractual limitation triggered by the accident date was unenforceable because it could expire before the UIM contract claim accrued. Pelissier v. GEICO General Insurance Co., 2024 N.H. 60. A UIM contract claim accrues when the insurer wrongfully denies coverage. Pelissier does not invalidate every contractual limitation; counsel should examine the clause's trigger and operation.

D. Coverage Analysis

E. Coverage Trigger

For Uninsured Motorist (UM) Claims:

Coverage is potentially triggered under RSA 264:15 and RSA 259:117 because:

☐ No applicable liability insurance covered the tortfeasor at the time of the collision
☐ The tortfeasor was a hit-and-run driver who has not been identified
☐ The liability insurer is unable to pay because of insolvency, subject to RSA 264:15, II-III
☐ The applicable liability limits are less than our client's applicable UM limits
☐ Payments to other persons injured in the accident reduced the available liability insurance below our client's applicable UM limits

For Underinsured Motorist (UIM) Claims:

For a limits-comparison claim under RSA 259:117:

☐ The tortfeasor's applicable liability limits of $[________________________________] are less than our client's applicable UM/UIM limits of $[________________________________]
☐ Payments to others reduced available liability insurance to $[________________________________], below our client's applicable UM/UIM limits
☐ Our client's legally recoverable damages exceed the liability payment and any other legally applicable credit

III. THE COLLISION AND LIABILITY

A. Facts of the Collision

On [__/__/____], at approximately [____] [a.m. / p.m.], our client was [________________________________] at or near [________________________________], [________________________________], New Hampshire.

[________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________]

B. Tortfeasor's Negligence

The tortfeasor, [________________________________], was negligent under New Hampshire law in the following respects:

☐ Failure to maintain proper lookout
☐ Failure to yield the right-of-way
☐ Following too closely in violation of RSA 265:25
☐ Excessive speed for conditions in violation of RSA 265:60
☐ Distracted driving (cell phone / other)
☐ Disobeying a traffic signal in violation of RSA 265:9
☐ Failing to stop or yield as required by RSA 265:30-:31
☐ Unsafe lane change in violation of RSA 265:24, I
☐ Driving under the influence in violation of RSA 265-A:2
☐ Other: [________________________________]

C. Evidence of Liability

1. Police / Crash Report
[________________________________] Police Department / NH State Police Crash Report No. [________________________________], dated [__/__/____].

2. Witness Statements
[____] independent witness(es) observed the collision. Statements on file.

3. Physical Evidence
Point of impact, vehicle damage patterns, debris field, and [________________________________].

4. Expert Analysis
☐ [________________________________] has prepared an accident reconstruction report concluding [________________________________].

D. Comparative Fault Analysis — RSA 507:7-d

RSA 507:7-d permits recovery when plaintiff fault is not greater than the defendant's fault, or the defendants' aggregate fault if recovery is allowed against more than one defendant. Allowed damages are reduced proportionally; recovery is barred only when plaintiff fault is greater than the governing comparison figure. Do not use an integer-only “51% or more” shortcut.

Our client bears no comparative fault for this collision based on [________________________________]. If any fault is attributed to our client, compare it with the applicable defendant fault under RSA 507:7-d and explain the supporting evidence: [________________________________].

IV. OUR CLIENT'S INJURIES AND TREATMENT

A. Injury Summary

As a direct and proximate result of this collision, our client sustained:

Primary Diagnoses:

• [________________________________]
• [________________________________]
• [________________________________]

Emergency Treatment:
Our client was transported by [________________________________] to [________________________________] Hospital on [__/__/____] and received emergency treatment for [________________________________].

B. Treatment Timeline

C. Current Condition and Prognosis

[________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________]

D. Permanent Impairment

Impairment rating assessed by [________________________________], M.D., on [__/__/____], using AMA Guides to Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, [____] Edition.

V. DAMAGES

A. Medical Expenses

Past Medical Expenses:

Future Medical Expenses (Present Value):

Future medical expenses supported by life care plan prepared by [________________________________] dated [__/__/____].

B. Lost Income / Lost Earning Capacity

Past Lost Income:

Our client [________________________________] at a rate of $[____________] per [day / week / year] and was unable to work from [__/__/____] through [__/__/____].

Total Past Lost Income: $[____________]

Documentation: ☐ Employer letter    ☐ Pay stubs    ☐ Tax returns    ☐ CPA report

Future Lost Earning Capacity:

Our client's injuries have permanently impaired his/her earning capacity. According to vocational rehabilitation expert [________________________________], our client has sustained:

Total Future Lost Earning Capacity (Present Value): $[____________]

C. Pain and Suffering / Non-Economic Damages

Our client has endured significant physical pain, emotional suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and disruption of daily activities. [________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________]

Pain and Suffering Valuation: $[____________]

D. Loss of Consortium (if applicable)

The injuries have substantially impaired our client's relationship with his/her spouse, [________________________________], resulting in compensable consortium damages.

Loss of Consortium: $[____________]

E. Total Damages Summary

VI. SETTLEMENT WITH TORTFEASOR'S INSURER AND SUBROGATION REVIEW

A. Settlement Status

We ☐ have reached / ☐ are pursuing a settlement with the tortfeasor's liability carrier, [________________________________], for the tortfeasor's policy limits of $[____________].

B. Policy Consent and Statutory Subrogation

RSA 264:15, IV preserves the UM/UIM insurer's subrogation interest to the extent of benefits paid, subject to the statute and policy. RSA 264:15, V also requires a prominent warning on a bodily-injury release that may affect UM benefits. The statute does not establish a general consent-to-settle response deadline.

NOTICE TO [CARRIER SHORT NAME]: If the policy requires consent before settlement or release, please identify the exact provision and provide [consent / objections / the information reasonably needed to decide] by [__/__/____]. No release will be executed without counsel's review of RSA 264:15, V, the policy, and the carrier's stated subrogation position.

VII. DEMAND FOR UM/UIM BENEFITS

A. Calculation of UIM Benefits Due

Do not subtract MedPay or another recovery automatically. Identify the policy provision and governing law for each proposed offset, and prevent duplicate recovery without inventing an offset not authorized by the contract or law.

B. Policy Limits Demand

We hereby demand payment of the full UM/UIM policy limits of $[____________].

Our client's total damages of $[____________] vastly exceed the combined coverage available. This is a clear policy limits case. The at-fault driver's coverage of $[____________] is wholly insufficient. Our client purchased UM/UIM coverage for exactly this situation, and New Hampshire law requires [CARRIER SHORT NAME] to honor that coverage.

VIII. NH-SPECIFIC BAD FAITH WARNING

A. Insurer's Duty to Its Own Insured

[CARRIER SHORT NAME] owes our client the implied contractual obligation of good faith and fair dealing. Lawton v. Great Southwest Fire Insurance Co., 118 N.H. 607, 392 A.2d 576 (1978). Whether a refusal or delay breaches that covenant depends on the facts; not every coverage dispute or delay is a breach. The carrier should:

• Conduct a prompt, thorough, and objective investigation of this claim
• Evaluate the claim fairly and in good faith
• State its coverage position and the factual and policy grounds supporting it
• Pay benefits owed under the policy without using delay to coerce acceptance of less than full contractual performance

B. Statutory Standards — RSA 417:4, XV

RSA 417:4, XV(a) defines specified acts as unfair claim settlement practices when committed without just cause and not merely inadvertently or accidentally. Potentially relevant acts include:

• Misrepresenting pertinent facts or policy provisions relating to coverages at issue
• Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications
• Failing to adopt and implement standards for prompt, reasonable investigation
• Failing to attempt in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlement when liability has become reasonably clear
• Compelling litigation to recover amounts due by offering substantially less than ultimately recovered
• Failing to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time after proof-of-loss forms have been submitted
• Knowingly underestimating the value of a claim

C. New Hampshire Private Right of Action — RSA 417:19

Important NH-Specific Limitation: A consumer action under RSA 417:19, I requires a final finding of violation or cease-and-desist order entered in a proceeding brought by the Insurance Commissioner. The consumer complaint process itself does not automatically create a private Chapter 417 claim. Our client retains the right to:

1. File a complaint with the New Hampshire Insurance Department. For the procedural rights stated in RSA 417:19, II, Commissioner inaction for 120 days is deemed a finding of no violation that may be appealed under RSA 541.
2. Pursue contract remedies if [CARRIER SHORT NAME] breaches the policy or implied covenant.
3. Seek foreseeable consequential contract damages proven to result from a breach. Lawton rejected an independent first-party bad-faith tort and dismissed mental-suffering and emotional-distress damages in that contract action.
4. Seek fees and costs when legally authorized. RSA 417:20, III awards reasonable attorneys' fees and suit costs to a consumer who prevails in an action under RSA 417:19, I.

D. Punitive Damages — Critical NH-Specific Note

RSA 507:16 provides: "No punitive damages shall be awarded in any action, unless otherwise provided by statute." This demand does not seek punitive damages. It preserves compensatory benefits, any proven foreseeable consequential contract damages, prejudgment interest if an action results in a qualifying damages award, and fees or costs where independently authorized.

E. Prejudgment Interest — RSA 336:1, II and RSA 524:1-b

RSA 336:1, II sets the annual simple rate for judgments, including prejudgment interest, using the State Treasurer's annual 26-week Treasury-bill formula. Under RSA 524:1-b, when a qualifying civil proceeding results in pecuniary damages, interest generally runs from the date of the writ or filing of the petition through judgment—not from this demand's date.

IX. ARBITRATION CONSIDERATIONS

A. Policy Arbitration Clause

The policy ☐ contains / ☐ does not contain an arbitration clause for UM/UIM disputes.

[If applicable: The arbitration clause states: "[________________________________]." Arbitration would be conducted under [________________________________] rules before [____] neutral arbitrator(s) in [________________________________], New Hampshire.]

B. Arbitration Demand (If Applicable)

If [CARRIER SHORT NAME] fails to accept this demand, this letter constitutes notice of our intent to invoke arbitration or to file suit in the New Hampshire Superior Court, Hillsborough / Merrimack / Rockingham / Strafford / [________________________________] County.

X. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WARNING

RSA 508:4 generally requires personal actions within three years of the act or omission complained of, subject to its discovery rule. For the underlying tort claim, calculate the deadline from the accident and any applicable discovery-rule facts: [__/__/____]. Preserve that tort claim independently of the UIM contract claim.

Under Pelissier, a UIM breach claim accrues when the insurer wrongfully denies coverage. The accident-triggered three-year contractual clause at issue there was unenforceable because it could expire before accrual. Counsel must separately calculate the tort deadline, UIM contract accrual date, statutory period, and effect of any policy limitation; Pelissier does not invalidate every contractual limitation.

XI. RESPONSE DEADLINE

THIS DEMAND EXPIRES AT 5:00 P.M. EASTERN TIME ON [__/__/____].

If [CARRIER SHORT NAME] fails to accept this demand by the stated deadline:

1. We will invoke arbitration (if required by policy) or file suit in New Hampshire Superior Court
2. We will pursue all available contract and consequential damages under New Hampshire law
3. We will file a formal complaint with the New Hampshire Insurance Department at:

New Hampshire Insurance Department
Consumer Services Division
21 South Fruit Street, Suite 14
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 271-2261 / (800) 852-3416
Email: [email protected]
Complaint page: https://www.insurance.nh.gov/consumers/filing-complaint

4. We reserve all rights, including to allege violations of RSA 417:4 and to seek an NHID finding that creates the predicate for a private action under RSA 417:19

XII. DOCUMENT PRESERVATION NOTICE

This letter requests preservation of documents, claim files, communications, notes, activity logs, quality-assurance reviews, and electronically stored information related to this claim and insured. Counsel should tailor the scope to relevant, nonprivileged material and applicable preservation duties; remedies for any loss of evidence depend on the governing facts and law.

XIII. CONCLUSION

Our client purchased UM/UIM coverage and now seeks the benefits available under the policy and New Hampshire law. We urge [CARRIER SHORT NAME] to evaluate the enclosed proof promptly, identify any disputed facts or policy provisions, and pay the benefits owed up to the applicable limits.

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________]

By: _______________________________________________
[________________________________]
NH Bar No. [________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________], NH [________]
Tel: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

Counsel for [________________________________]

ENCLOSURES:

• Policy declarations page and UM/UIM coverage provisions
• Police / NH State Police crash report
• All medical records and itemized bills
• Photographs of scene and vehicles
• Witness statements
• Expert reports (life care plan, accident reconstruction, vocational)
• Proof of tortfeasor's policy limits (coverage verification letter)
• Subrogation / consent-to-settle request

CC:

• [________________________________] (Client)
• [________________________________] (Tortfeasor's Carrier — consent to settle)

NEW HAMPSHIRE UM/UIM QUICK REFERENCE

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• RSA 264:15 — Uninsured or Hit-and-Run Motor Vehicle Coverage: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/264/264-15.htm
• RSA 259:61 — Motor Vehicle Liability Policy: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-61.htm
• RSA 259:117 — Uninsured Motor Vehicle: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/259/259-117.htm
• RSA 264:16 — Medical Payments: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/264/264-16.htm
• RSA 417:4, XV — Unfair Claim Settlement Practices: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXXVII/417/417-4.htm
• RSA 417:19 — Action Against Supplier: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXXVII/417/417-19.htm
• RSA 417:20 — Administration of Actions; Fees and Costs: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXXVII/417/417-20.htm
• RSA 507:7-d — Comparative Fault: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/LII/507/507-7-d.htm
• RSA 507:16 — Punitive Damages Outlawed: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/LII/507/507-16.htm
• RSA 508:4 — Personal Actions: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/LII/508/508-4.htm
• RSA 336:1 — Rate of Interest: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXXI/336/336-1.htm
• RSA 524:1-b — Interest From Date of Writ: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/LIII/524/524-1-b.htm
• RSA 265:9 — Obedience to Traffic-Control Devices: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/265/265-9.htm
• RSA 265:24 — Driving on Roadways Laned for Traffic: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/265/265-24.htm
• RSA 265:25 — Following Too Closely: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/265/265-25.htm
• RSA 265:30 — Vehicle Entering Stop or Yield Intersection: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/265/265-30.htm
• RSA 265:31 — Stop Signs; Yield Signs: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/265/265-31.htm
• RSA 265:60 — Basic Speed Rule: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/265/265-60.htm
• RSA 265-A:2 — Driving Under the Influence: https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/265-A/265-A-2.htm
• New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 408: https://www.courts.nh.gov/rules-evidence/rule-408-compromise-and-offers-compromise
• Pelissier v. GEICO General Insurance Co., 2024 N.H. 60: https://www.courts.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt471/files/documents/2024-10/2024060pelissier.pdf
• State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Holyoke Mutual Insurance Co., 150 N.H. 527, 841 A.2d 68 (2004): https://www.courts.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt471/files/documents/2022-04/2004012statefarm.pdf
• Lawton v. Great Southwest Fire Insurance Co., 118 N.H. 607, 392 A.2d 576 (1978): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2064844/
• NH Insurance Department — Complaint Filing: https://www.insurance.nh.gov/consumers/filing-complaint
• NH Insurance Department — Contact Us: https://www.insurance.nh.gov/about-us/contact-us