Cited by

Gould v. Concord Hospital, 126 N.H. 405, 408 (1985) (unconstitutional under Part I, Article 23 to retrospectively apply amendment to statute of limitations when retrospective application would impair defendants’ vested right to assert a limitations defense).

In light of our holding in Gould v. Concord Hospital, 126 N.H. 405 (1985), that “the classification created by RSA 556:11 violated the equal protection clause of the New Hampshire Constitution,” we did not apply the statute as written.

Further, a “vested right may relate to the grounds of the action, or the grounds of the defen[s]e, both of which seem to be equally protected by the constitution.” Gould v. Concord Hospital, 126 N.H. 405, 408 (1985) (quotation omitted).

Due process under Part I, Article 14 “provides that all citizens have a right to the redress of their actionable injuries.” Gould v. Concord Hospital, 126 N.H. 405, 409 (1985).

elected to apply a middle tier standard to an estate’s right to recover under the wrongful death statute.” Id,.; see Gould v. Concord Hospital, 126 N.H. 405, 408-09 (1985).

The trial court relied upon our decision in Burke v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., 120 N.H. 365 (1980), not followed on other grounds by Gould v. Concord Hospital, 126 N.H. 405, 409 (1985), in which we held that an injured party did not have a direct cause of action against the insurance company of the person who injured him, id.

*525 This provision provides that all citizens have a right to the redress of their actionable injuries.

.[rather] its substance.” Gould v. Concord Hospital, 126 N.H. 405, 407 (1985) (quotation and brackets omitted).

In other cases, however, we have upheld the dismissal of one of the plaintiff’s contract or tort claims when “the claims in the two suits are one in the same.” TaylorBoren v. Isaac, 143 N.H. 261, 266 (1998) (quotation and brackets omitted); cf. Gould v. Concord Hospital, 126 N.H. 405, 407-08 (1985) (applying tort statute of limitations for plaintiff’s claim of breach of implied contract because failure to provide “appropriate” medical care substantively alleged a claim in tort, not contract).

See, e.g., Gould v. Concord Hospi *526 tal, 126 N.H. 405, 409, 493 A.2d 1193, 1196 (1985) (invalidating two-year statute of limitations for wrongful death actions under former version of RSA 556:11); see also Park v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 121 N.H. 894, 899, 436 A.2d 1136, 1139 (1981) (equal protection guarantee extends to State’s granting of privileges as well as to its i

Such reliance is not well placed, however, because the substantive right to maintain actions in tort that is accorded solicitous protection by the State Constitution is the right to redress of actionable injuries.

These principles require that the substantive rights of plaintiffs to maintain actions in tort be accorded solicitous protection.” Gould v. Concord Hospital, 126 N.H. 405, 409, 493 A.2d 1193, 1196 (1985).

from enacting legislation with retroactive effect.”) with Gould v. Concord Hospital, 126 N.H. 405, 408, 493 A.2d 1193, 1195-96 (1985) (right to assert statute of limitations defense vests once limitations period has run; part I, article 23 prohibits law from operating retroactively to impair that vested right); see also Society v. Wheeler, 22 F. Cas.

The plaintiff’s essay at raising the constitutional issues simply overlooks the difference between the statutes considered in cases like Carson v. Maurer, 120 N.H. 925, 424 A.2d 825 (1980) and Gould v. Concord Hospital, 126 N.H. 405, 493 A.2d 1193 (1985), which struck down temporal and procedural limitations on the very right to bring action, and the present statute, which merely bars the discovery and admissibility of a limited category of evidence insofar as it was collected or generated for a

In considering a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs’ allegations are regarded as true.

It has long been settled in this State that a “right to assert the statute of limitations as a defense vests once the limitations period has run.” Gould v. Concord Hospital, 126 N.H. 405, 408, 493 A.2d 1193, 1195-96 (1985) (citing Rockport v. Walden, 54 N.H. 167, 173-74 (1874)).

Given that, RSA 407:15’s treatment of the class of persons who want to sue over a fire insurance claim is “reasonable, not arbitrary, and rest[s] upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation....” Gould v. Concord Hospital, 126 N.H. 405, 408-09, 493 A.2d 1193, 1196 (1985) (quoting Carson v. Maurer, 120 N.H. 925, 932, 424 A.2d 825, 831 (1980)).

In April 1985, in Gould v. Concord Hospital, 126 N.H. 405, 493 A.2d 1193 (1985), we held that the two-year statute of limitations was unconstitutional.

RSA 556:11 provides that actions in tort for personal injuries may be brought “at any time within two years after the death of the deceased party, and not afterwards.” Our analysis of this issue begins with our recent decision in Gould v. Concord Hospital, 126 N.H. 405, 493 A.2d 1193 (1985).

Against these four considerations must be weighed the constitutional principle “that all citizens have a right to the redress of their actionable injuries” and the policy that a person or entity that “unreasonably interferes with the interests of another should be liable for the resulting injury.” Gould v. Concord Hospital, 126 N.H. 405, 409, 493 A.2d 1193, 1196 (1985); N.H. CONST, pt.