Iacomini v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (1985)
Citation: 127 N.H. 73, 497 A.2d 854 (1985) · Decided: August 7, 1985. Full primary opinion reviewed; source-host and later-treatment boundaries appear below.
Source note (2026-10-18):
- Links on this page to
https://static.case.law/nh/127/cases/0073-01.jsonare an (unofficial Caselaw Access Project copy, retrieved before 2026-10-18; host disallows automated access); no official or otherwise permitted full-text copy was located on 2026-10-18.
Facts and posture
A person who did not own a stolen Mercedes requested repairs. The true owner’s subrogated insurer recovered the car through replevin; the repairer sought payment for repair/storage and attempted to specify an unjust-enrichment claim within the period the court had allowed. The repairer’s reasonable belief that the customer owned the car did not establish the true owner’s consent. Iacomini (reporter).
Lien holdings
No statutory RSA 450:1–2 lien arose against the unconsenting true owner. The statutory prerequisites must be strictly observed. A common-law repair lien also requires owner authorization/consent or acquiescence; contracting with a thief or unauthorized possessor did not meet that condition. The motor-vehicle lien statute supplements rather than extinguishes the common-law artisan lien. See pages 76–77. Iacomini (reporter).
Restitution holding and disposition
The repairer could potentially obtain equitable restitution for value actually conferred, and the court abused its discretion by refusing the timely amendment after expressly allowing ninety days to bring the claim. Reversed and remanded for a new trial. The Court did not actually award an equitable lien or a fixed recovery. The measure, if warranted, is the increase in vehicle value from the work, not simply repairer’s costs or the vehicle’s value when stolen. See pages 77–78. Iacomini (reporter).
Treatment and currentness
The full primary opinion was recovered in CAP raw JSON and cross-checked with the independent full reporter reproduction. Current RSA 450 retains the owner-consent/contract and possession conditions, and §9-333 recognizes qualifying statutory OR rule-of-law possessory liens; no statement that enactment erased the common-law category is justified. This review did not locate a later NH opinion overruling these propositions, but the observation is not a comprehensive negative-treatment certificate. Iacomini (reporter); iacomini; RSA 450; RSA 382-A.
Practical impact
A repair invoice and possession do not prove a lien against the true owner. Separate statutory/common-law creation, possible equitable restitution and any sale power. General RSA 444 enforcement is not itself creation of an owner’s consent. Iacomini (reporter); RSA 444.
Applies in →
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify the applicable current law and case-specific record before acting.