CarInsurance.com Buy Insurance Online
> ZIP code:  Quote & Compare
CarInsurance.com Navigation

Get Free Quotes Now

Zip Code:
Save With CarInsurance.com!

Insurer Not Entitled to Immunity From Suit, Rules New Jersey Supreme Court

Lawyers USA Insurance Related
Published: Monday, August 25, 2008 

A CarInsurance.com Customer Said:

This was the easiest way I've ever bought insurance.

Nicolas B.
Orlando, FL

By Report

An insurer is not entitled to immunity from suit over an insured's election of coverage where the insurer gave out erroneous information, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled. The insured phoned his auto insurer to ask how to obtain coverage for his wife, who had just purchased a new car. He specifically requested that her coverage be as good as his coverage. The customer representative told him that adding his wife and her car to his current policy would provide each of them with a $500,000 policy limit. In fact, this split that limit between them.

The couple was severely injured in a single accident in the same vehicle. They sought a declaratory judgment that each was entitled to benefits up to $500,000.

The insurer argued it was immune under a state statute protecting insurers from suit "on account of the election" of coverage by the insured.

But the court held that the insurer was not entitled to immunity under these circumstances.

"Here, having specifically asked for a separate policy for [his wife] that would give [her] the same coverage that [the insured] had, and having been assured that by adding [her] to the existing policy, each of the spouses would have the same coverage that [he] had preceding [her] addition to the policy, the declarations page that plaintiffs received immediately thereafter did not dispel the inaccurate advice that [the insured] had been given. ...

"Under these circumstances, and in light of the great importance of the declarations page in determining the reasonable expectations of an insured ... we conclude both that the policy documents were ambiguous and that it was reasonable for plaintiffs to believe that they had secured the 'double coverage' that they thought they had been promised," the court held.

New Jersey Supreme Court. Pizzullo v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co., No. A-21-07. August 7, 2008. Lawyers USA No. 99310555.

Originally published by Lawyers USA Staff Report.

(c) 2008 Lawyers USA. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.

Car Insurance News: Insurer Not Entitled to Immunity From Suit, Rules New Jersey Supreme Court...Get an auto insurance quote!

story

Share this on: Digg This StumbleUpon Add to Facebook Add to Del.icio.us Furl It Seed Newsvine
reddit this! Save to Ma.gnolia Save to Blinklist Technorati This Submit to Propeller Windows Live Favorites Add Google Bookmark

©2009 CarInsurance.com, Inc. - Online Insurance Marketplace™
safe and secure auto insurance   better business bureau car insurance   Tested, Safe, and Secure Car Insurance