of invasion of privacy and false imprisonment are inextricably linked with the claims of sexual abuse such that they are not entitled to coverage. We find it important to state what we do not hold in this case. We do not hold that the policy at issue could never cover claims for invasion of privacy or false imprisonment; nor do we hold that there is no set of facts upon which State Farm would become liable to defend and/or indemnify Mr. Bruns. Instead, we hold only that on the facts as they are alleged, the claims for false imprisonment and invasion of privacy are inextricably intertwined with and dependent upon the uncovered sexual assault claims and are, therefore, outside the policy’s coverage. See Pennsylvania Millers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Doe, 882 F. Supp. 195, 198-99 (D.N.H. 1994) (<HOLDING>). In this way we agree with the conclusion of
holding that assault resulting in bodily injury under  111b is a crime of violence holding that specific intent is not element of assault resulting in serious bodily injury holding that an information charging defendant with offense of burglary that alleged that the defendant had committed an assault was not defective for failing to further allege specific facts that constituted assault holding that despite the inclusion of negligencebased counts because sexual assault was the only act alleged in the writ as a cause of bodily injury the injuries alleged had to be viewed as repercussions of the assault holding that merger did not apply because sexual assault was not a lesser included offense of seconddegree kidnapping involving sexual assault