A more practical New Hampshire Insurance Claims guide: supplement submission order, the process pressure that hides behind the rule, and clearer timing

New Hampshire insurance law operates under the singular fact that New Hampshire is the only state in the United States that does not require its drivers to carry automobile liability insurance — a distinction that fundamentally shapes how NH residents and their attorneys approach auto accident claims, property damage recovery, and uninsured motorist (UM) exposure. Under RSA 259:61-a and RSA 264:14, NH requires not liability insurance but "financial responsibility" — the obligation to demonstrate the ability to pay for accidents. Drivers may satisfy this obligation through purchasing insurance, posting a bond ($75,000), or demonstrating net assets exceeding $75,000. In practice, most NH drivers voluntarily purchase insurance (the NH Automobile Insurance Plan/residual market handles drivers who cannot obtain coverage in the standard market), but a meaningful percentage of NH drivers operate without any insurance whatsoever, exposing injured parties to the risk of recovering nothing from an at-fault uninsured driver unless they carry their own UM coverage.

The NH Insurance Department (NHID; Concord, NH) regulates insurance in a state with a distinctive regulatory philosophy: NH's political culture strongly favors limited government intervention, and the Insurance Department's approach to rate regulation and coverage mandates reflects this — NH has not enacted some consumer protection insurance mandates adopted by more regulatory-activist states. The leading NH bad faith insurance decision is Lawton v. Great Southwest Fire Insurance Co., 118 N.H. 607 (1978), establishing that insurance companies owe a duty of good faith and fair dealing to their policyholders, and that breach of this duty can give rise to a tort claim for bad faith beyond mere breach of contract. Subsequent NH decisions have refined the bad faith standard — plaintiffs must generally show that the insurer's conduct was unreasonable, not merely that a coverage dispute was resolved against the insurer.