man,” N.H.S. JOUR. 537 (1969), by reimbursing employees for their legal expenses. Additionally, the legislature intended to discourage appeals by employers in workers’ compensation cases. See Seppala & Aho Constr. Co. v. Elton, 119 N.H. 634, 636, 406 A.2d 460, 462 (1979). This deterrent purpose suggests that an employer should not be relieved of its obligation to pay attorney’s fees simply because the employee belongs to an organization that provides legal representation as a membership benefit. Cf. Safeway Rental & Sales Co. v. Albina Engine & Machine Works, 343 F.2d 129, 134 (10th Cir. 1965) (reasoning that prevailing party’s liability insurance should not relieve negligent party of its obligation to indemnify for fees); Lesmark, Inc. v. Pryce, 334 F.2d 942, 945 (D.C. Cir. 1964) (<HOLDING>); Futrell v. Martin, 600 P.2d 777, 783 (Idaho
holding award of attorneys fees to party prevailing on contract claim is mandatory under section 38001 if there is proof of the reasonableness of the fees holding nominal damages sufficient to establish prevailing party status but affirming denial of attorneys fees on ground that award of nominal damages does not usually entitle a prevailing party to fees under 28 usc  1988 holding that prevailing partys liability insurance and lack of responsibility for attorneys fees does not relieve losing party of obligation to indemnify for counsel fees holding that an award of attorneys fees under supreme court rule 38 precursor to rule 222 did not preempt an award of attorneys fees to which one is otherwise entitled and thus appellant could seek an award of attorneys fees pursuant to section 1577300 which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees