State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Colin Bouchard NH Self Defense Gun Case
No. 216-2020-CV-0425 – Hillsborough County Superior Court – Northern District
Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (January 25, 2022)
Hon. N. William Delker, Presiding Justice
Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (January 25, 2022)
Hon. N. William Delker, Presiding Justice
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about this Landmark New Hampshire Decision
Q1: What was the main issue in this case?
A: The case was a declaratory judgment action brought by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company against Colin Bouchard. State Farm claimed it had no duty to defend or indemnify Bouchard under his homeowner's insurance policy for a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Estate of Jason Barry. The key questions were:
- Does an act of self-defense qualify as an “occurrence” (accident) under the policy?
- Does the “expected or intended” injury exclusion apply when the insured reasonably believes they are acting in self-defense?
A: On July 19, 2019, Colin Bouchard shot and killed Jason Barry after discovering him inside Bouchard's detached garage late at night via surveillance video. Bouchard retrieved a loaded firearm, approached the garage, yelled for Barry to stop, believed he saw something in Barry's hand, and fired one shot that struck Barry in the face. Barry died en route to the hospital. Bouchard was not criminally charged and asserted he acted in self-defense.
Q3: Who represented the parties?
- State Farm (plaintiff) – insurance company seeking to disclaim coverage.
- Colin Bouchard represented by Shaheen and Gordon (defendant) – insured homeowner.
- Estate of Jason Barry (intervenor) – represented by Joseph Kelly Levasseur, Esq., who successfully opposed State Farm's motion for summary judgment.
The Superior Court (Judge N. William Delker) denied State Farm's motion for summary judgment and granted Bouchard's motion. The court held that:
- Acts of self-defense can qualify as an “accident”/“occurrence” under the policy.
- The “expected or intended” injury exclusion does not automatically bar coverage for justified self-defense.
- State Farm had a duty to defend Bouchard in the underlying wrongful death action.
A: This was a case of first impression in New Hampshire. The court adopted the reasoning of jurisdictions that favor insurance coverage for privileged acts of self-defense, aligning with public policy that does not treat justified defensive conduct as wrongful. State Farm did not appeal, and the underlying wrongful death case settled favorably for the estate.
Q6: What reasoning did the court use regarding “occurrence” and self-defense?
The court relied on Vermont Mutual Insurance Company v. Malcolm, 128 N.H. 521 (1986), to define an “accident” as something unforeseen and fortuitous from the insured's perspective. It found that self-defense acts are:
- Spontaneous and prompted by unexpected danger.
- Not primarily intended to injure, but to protect oneself.
- Consistent with New Hampshire's self-defense statute RSA 627:4.
The court cited persuasive authority from other states, including Allstate Ins. Co. v. Novak, 313 N.W.2d 636 (Neb. 1981); Transamerica Ins. Grp. v. Meere, 694 P.2d 181 (Ariz. 1984); and Vermont Mut. Ins. Co. v. Walukiewicz, 966 A.2d 672 (Conn. 2009), and rejected cases that treat self-defense identically to intentional assault.
Yes. The court explained that the exclusion is meant to prevent insurance from shielding wrongful intentional misconduct. However, self-defense is not wrongful — it is a justified, privileged act. Denying coverage would contradict public policy, as the insured is not in control of the risk when forced to defend themselves.
Q8: What were the two main reasons the court ruled in favor of coverage?
- The parties agreed Bouchard believed he acted in self-defense, and the court found such acts are covered under the policy.
- The Estate alleged the shooting might have been a pure accident (not even self-defense). In either scenario — justifiable self-defense or true accident — coverage applies.
State Farm did not appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The insurer provided a defense and ultimately paid a substantial (sealed) settlement to the Estate of Jason Barry.Q10: How can other attorneys use this decision?
This ruling is persuasive authority in New Hampshire and other jurisdictions for cases involving:
- Homeowner's or liability insurance coverage disputes
- Self-defense or justifiable use of force
- “Occurrence” definitions and “expected or intended” exclusions
- Wrongful death claims where the insured raises self-defense
If you are an attorney handling a similar insurance coverage dispute involving self-defense or wrongful death, feel free to reach out. This decision may be helpful in your case.
Tips for Word: