Hoge v. Hubb

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that RSA 491:22 “does not, as Binda suggests, require an actual denial of coverage by an insurer before an insured must seek a determination of coverage or risk being time-barred”
• holding “that an amended writ triggers a new six-month limitations period under RSA 491:22, III when new factual or legal allegations change the cause of action in a manner that raises a coverage issue for the first time”
• holding “that an amended writ triggers a new six-month limitations period under RSA 491:22, III when new factual or legal allegations change the cause of action in a manner that raises a coverage issue for the first time”
• concluding in a case that did not involve a tolling agreement “that filing a declaratory judgment action more than six months beyond discovery of the pertinent facts underlying the coverage dispute is not reasonable as a matter of law”
• imposing requirement that action be filed “within a reasonable time frame” after discovery of facts giving rise to coverage dispute
• “[A]n amended writ triggers a new six-month limitations period under RSA 491-22, III when new factual or legal allegations change the cause of action in a manner that raises a coverage issue for the first time.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).