The insured plaintiff appealed a superior court's decision to grant his insurer's request for summary judgment. That court determined that the insurer was not obligated to cover the loss of the insured's livestock. The insured, a dairy farmer, had cattle die or had to be destroyed because of suffering to a continuous exposure to stray voltage. The farm's milking equipment and various other property such as farm buildings, water troughs and fences were charged with stray voltage, and his cattle often received shocks when they came into contact with such property. This situation caused the direct death of some cattle while slaughtering became necessary for cattle that avoided all of the charged property and were rendered useless as dairy animals.

Once the stray voltage situation was diagnosed, "blockers" were installed to prevent further injuries. However, the insured estimated that, over the years, he suffered roughly $100,000 in loss of livestock.

The insurer denied the claim, asserting that the injury and deaths to the animals were not eligible for coverage. The insurer disagreed with the insured's opinion of the applicability of the following policy provisions:

"This policy insures against direct physical loss to covered property caused by the following perils, but only for those perils in the Peril Group shown on YOUR schedule.

R. Sudden and Accidental Damage from Artificially sic Generated Electrical Current. WE do not cover loss to a rube, transistor or similar electronic component.

...V. LIVESTOCK. WE cover loss or damage to LIVESTOCK caused by perils A through R and, in addition, loss or damage to LIVESTOCK caused by electrocution..."

The insurance company was granted a summary judgment by an appeals court, supporting its assertion that the nature of the loss was not "electrocution" nor was it "Sudden and Accidental" damage.

The state's supreme court did not believe the issue regarding the definition of "electrocution" was pertinent, but it did review the understanding of "Sudden and Accidental." The court found some ambiguity concerning the phrase, "Sudden and Accidental." The court felt that, although the phrase has often been interpreted as meaning an event that occurs quickly or abruptly, it was not inconsistent to also interpret the phrase as meaning "unexpected or unintended." The injury to the livestock, caused by the stray voltage, was neither expected or intended from the insured's standpoint. In light of the uncertainty surrounding the phrase, the court found it reasonable to construe the situation in favor of coverage. The decision of the appeals court was reversed in favor of the insured.

(HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FARM FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. New Hampshire Supreme Court No.96-236 July 7, 1997. CCH 1997 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 6186.)