6 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Contrans, Inc. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.green2 sentences1999Contrans, Inc. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 836 F. 2d 163, 166 (3d Cir.1987). [10] Based on the portions quoted in the opinion, they appear to be identical to those contained in New Hampshire's and Vanliner's policy. [11] For this reason, it could be argued that the policy is ambiguous, leading to a conclusion that both insurers should be equally liable. 1994An escape clause attempts to release the insurer from all liability to the insured if other coverage is available. [Contrans, Inc. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 836 F.2d 163, 166 (3d Cir.1987).] Generally speaking, pro-rata provisions are intended to apply only “when the coverage is concurrent.” St. | 2 | 2 |
Proformance Insurance v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2019See, e.g. , Proformance , 185 N.J. at 416 -17 , 887 A.2d 146 (collecting cases); Selected Risks Ins. 2019See, e.g. , Proformance , 185 N.J. at 416 -17 , 887 A.2d 146 (collecting cases); Selected Risks Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Admiral Insurancegreen2 sentences2001See Carter-Wallace, *245 supra, 154 N.J. at 324-325 , 712 A. 2d 1116 . 2001See Carter-Wallace, *245 supra, 154 N.J. at 324-325 , 712 A. 2d 1116 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matits v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2019The rule provides that when a driver has permission to use a motor vehicle in the first instance, any subsequent use short of theft or the like while it remains in his possession, though not within the contemplation of the parties, is a permissive use within the terms of a standard omnibus clause in an automobile insurance policy. [ Matits , 33 N.J. at 496 -97 , 166 A.2d 345 .] In implementing the initial permission doctrine, New Jersey courts have refused to enforce insurance provisions that attempted to circumvent the permissive user rule by excluding categories of permissive users from a po 2019The rule provides that when a driver has permission to use a motor vehicle in the first instance, any subsequent use short of theft or the like while it remains in his possession, though not within the contemplation of the parties, is a permissive use within the terms of a standard omnibus clause in an automobile insurance policy. [ Matits , 33 N.J. at 496 -97 , 166 A.2d 345 .] In implementing the initial permission doctrine, New Jersey courts have refused to enforce insurance provisions that attempted to circumvent the permissive user rule by excluding categories of permissive users from a po | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Rao v. Universal Underwriters, Ins.
green
2 sentences2019In Rao , the Appellate Division determined that an insurance policy included an escape clause when it stated that: The portion of the limit applicable to persons or organizations required by law to be an INSURED is only the amount ( or amount in excess of any other insurance available to them ) needed to comply with the minimum limits provision of such law in the jurisdiction where the OCCURRENCE takes place. [ Id. at 399 , 549 A.2d 1259 (emphasis added).] The panel held that a purported step-down provision that "attempts to preclude coverage entirely because of other [insurance] coverage" ava 2019In Rao , the Appellate Division determined that an insurance policy included an escape clause when it stated that: The portion of the limit applicable to persons or organizations required by law to be an INSURED is only the amount ( or amount in excess of any other insurance available to them ) needed to comply with the minimum limits provision of such law in the jurisdiction where the OCCURRENCE takes place. [ Id. at 399 , 549 A.2d 1259 (emphasis added).] The panel held that a purported step-down provision that "attempts to preclude coverage entirely because of other [insurance] coverage" ava | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Selected Risks Insurance Co. v. Zullo
green
2 sentences2019In Rao , the Appellate Division determined that an insurance policy included an escape clause when it stated that: The portion of the limit applicable to persons or organizations required by law to be an INSURED is only the amount ( or amount in excess of any other insurance available to them ) needed to comply with the minimum limits provision of such law in the jurisdiction where the OCCURRENCE takes place. [ Id. at 399 , 549 A.2d 1259 (emphasis added).] The panel held that a purported step-down provision that "attempts to preclude coverage entirely because of other [insurance] coverage" ava 2019In Rao , the Appellate Division determined that an insurance policy included an escape clause when it stated that: The portion of the limit applicable to persons or organizations required by law to be an INSURED is only the amount ( or amount in excess of any other insurance available to them ) needed to comply with the minimum limits provision of such law in the jurisdiction where the OCCURRENCE takes place. [ Id. at 399 , 549 A.2d 1259 (emphasis added).] The panel held that a purported step-down provision that "attempts to preclude coverage entirely because of other [insurance] coverage" ava | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Selective Ins. v. Charter Risk
green
2 sentences2003The lessor's policy, which contained the same escape clause we invalidated in Selective Ins. v. Charter Risk, supra, 261 N.J.Super. 1 , 617 A. 2d 664 , contained an other-insurance clause virtually identical to Lexington's here. 2003The lessor's policy, which contained the same escape clause we invalidated in Selective Ins. v. Charter Risk, supra, 261 N.J.Super. 1 , 617 A. 2d 664 , contained an other-insurance clause virtually identical to Lexington's here. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
UTI Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence2001Id. at 378 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State in Interest of MS
green
1 sentence1981Finally, I find absolutely conclusive the fact that the Supreme Court in State in Interest of M.S., supra , rejected the thesis that a JINS could be guilty of conduct constituting an escape in violation of former N.J.S.A. 2A:104-6. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.