Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance Company and Henkel Corporation appealed a New Hampshire Superior Court decision that denied their motion for summary judgment while granting summary judgment in favor of the State of New Hampshire and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The dispute centered on significant flooding damage to Henkel's property, attributed to extraordinary rainfall and exacerbated by the design and construction of Interstate 95. The plaintiffs claimed inverse condemnation, arguing that state actions caused the flooding. However, the court found the claim unsubstantiated, noting that the loss of property use was temporary, the flooding was primarily an act of God, and there was insufficient evidence of causation by the defendants. On appeal, the plaintiffs contended that temporary takings of real property are compensable under New Hampshire law and argued unresolved material facts existed regarding the cause of the flood. The court upheld the lower court’s ruling, affirming that no compensable taking occurred as the flooding did not constitute a permanent invasion of property. Additionally, the court ruled that New Hampshire law does not recognize inverse condemnation for personal property, categorizing Henkel's personal property damage as non-compensable consequential damage.
Legal Issues Addressed
Government Liability for Property Damagesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: To establish government liability, the overflow must be directly from a government structure and represent a permanent invasion. The court found no such permanent invasion in this case.
Reasoning: To establish a viable claim for government liability, an overflow must result directly from a government structure and represent a permanent invasion of property, not merely damage.
Inverse Condemnation for Personal Propertysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Plaintiffs' claim for a permanent taking of personal property was dismissed as New Hampshire law does not recognize inverse condemnation for personal property, and the damage was deemed consequential.
Reasoning: Regarding the claim for permanent taking of personal property lost in the flood, the plaintiffs conceded that New Hampshire law does not recognize inverse condemnation for personal property.
Inverse Condemnation for Real Propertysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court ruled that the plaintiffs' claim for inverse condemnation failed because the alleged taking was temporary and not permanent, the flooding was primarily due to an act of God, and there was insufficient evidence to prove government action caused the flood.
Reasoning: The trial court found that the plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claim failed for three reasons: (1) the loss of property use was temporary, not permanent, thus not constituting a 'taking'; (2) the flooding was primarily due to an act of God; and (3) there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the defendants' actions contributed to the flood.
Temporary Takings under New Hampshire Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Plaintiffs argued that a temporary taking of real property is compensable under New Hampshire law, contrary to the trial court's ruling. However, the court found no genuine factual issues that would prevent summary judgment.
Reasoning: Plaintiffs argue on appeal that a temporary taking of real property is compensable under New Hampshire law, contrary to the trial court's ruling.