BRENTWOOD —The homeowner's insurance carrier for the mother of the man who shot five police officers, killing Greenland Police Chief Michael Maloney, claims it's not obligated to provide coverage or defend her against a lawsuit brought by the four surviving officers.

Amica Mutual Insurance Company recently filed a petition for declaratory judgment against Beverly Mutrie in Rockingham County Superior Court.

The petition lists several reasons why the insurance company's coverage is excluded in the case, which involves the deadly shooting outside 517 Post Road in Greenland on April 12.

Mutrie, who lives in Hampton Falls, owns the Greenland property through a trust.

Her son, Cullen Mutrie, was living at the home and fired at Maloney and four agents serving with the Attorney General's Drug Task Force when they showed up to serve a search warrant related to a drug investigation.

The four officers suffered gunshot wounds while Maloney died after pulling one of the officers to safety.

Mutrie later shot and killed his girlfriend, Brittany Tibbetts, before killing himself inside the house.

The officers have since filed suit against Beverly Mutrie, arguing she is liable for their injuries because she owned the property where the shooting occurred and, they claim, was aware of her son's alleged drug activities.

Their suit accuses Mutrie of “wantonly and recklessly” allowing the activity to occur.

Among other things, Amica's petition said “willful and wanton conduct constitutes acts of an intentional nature” and is therefore excluded by Beverly Mutrie's homeowner's and umbrella policies.

Coverage also is excluded, the insurance company says, because the alleged criminal activity on the property included controlled substances and the officers' injuries occurred at the Greenland residence, which wasn't an insured location under Mutrie's homeowner's policy, the petition said.

Christopher Grant, the Portsmouth attorney representing the officers, declined comment on Amica's legal action.

Meanwhile, Mutrie's lawyers have sought to dismiss the officers' suit, insisting that she can't be held liable just because she owns the property.

They also have maintained that she wasn't aware of criminal activity occurring on the property.

A judge has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss the suit.

jschreiber@newstote.com