HASKELL PROPERTIES, LLC VS. THE AMERICAN INSURANCE Â COMPANY(L-5396-13, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
    APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
    SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
    APPELLATE DIVISION
    DOCKET NO. A-1452-14T2
    HASKELL PROPERTIES, LLC,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    THE AMERICAN INSURANCE
    COMPANY, ST. PAUL FIRE
    & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,
    FIRST STATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
    GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
    OF NEW YORK f/k/a AMERICAN
    NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
    and FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY,
    Defendants-Respondents.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Argued February 2, 2016 – Decided August 4, 2016
    Remanded by Supreme Court May 19, 2017
    Resubmitted June 14, 2017 – Decided June 29, 2017
    Before   Judges    Espinosa,   Rothstadt,   and
    Currier.
    On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
    Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-
    5396-13.
    Eric E. Tomaszewski argued the cause for
    appellant (Golub Isabel & Cervino, P.C.,
    attorneys; Mr. Tomaszewski, of counsel;
    Joseph A. Ferriero, on the briefs).
    John Maloney argued the cause for respondent
    St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company
    (Graham Curtin, PA, attorneys; Mr. Maloney
    and Stephen V. Gimigliano, on the brief).
    Michael E. Buckley argued the cause for
    respondents The American Insurance Company
    and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (Rivkin
    Radler LLP, attorneys, join in the brief of
    respondent St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
    Company).
    Evan   S.   Neadel   argued   the cause   for
    respondent First State Insurance Company
    (Becker   Meisel,    LLC,   Wayne S.   Karbal
    (Karbal, Cohen, Economou, Silk & Dunne,
    LLC), of the Illinois bar, admitted pro hac
    vice, and Gerald E. Ziebell (Karbal, Cohen,
    Economou, Silk & Dunne, LLC), of the
    Illinois   bar,    admitted   pro hac   vice,
    attorneys, join in the brief of respondent
    St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company).
    Christopher    P.   Ferragamo    (Jackson    &
    Campbell, P.C.) of the District of Columbia
    bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause
    for respondent Great American Insurance
    Company   f/k/a    American   National    Fire
    Insurance   Company   (DiFrancesco,  Bateman,
    Coley, Yospin, Kunzman, Davis, Lehrer &
    Flaum, P.C., and Mr. Ferragamo, attorneys,
    join in the brief of respondent St. Paul
    Fire & Marine Insurance Company).
    PER CURIAM
    As directed by the Supreme Court in its summary remand
    order of May 19, 2017, we have reviewed our earlier unreported
    decision in this matter, Haskell Properties, LLC v. The American
    Insurance Company, Docket No. A-1452-14 (App. Div. August 4,
    2016), in light of the Court's decision in Givaudan Fragrances
    Corporation v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 
    227 N.J. 322
    (2017).
    2                          A-1452-14T2
    In     our       earlier     opinion,      we     relied    upon       the   principles
    enunciated by this court in Givaudan Fragrances Corporation v.
    Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 
    442 N.J. Super. 28
     (App. Div.
    2015),     in        holding     plaintiff's          complaint       in     this      matter
    sufficiently stated a cause of action against defendants that
    refused        "to     provide     coverage        for    losses      originating       from
    occurrences that predated" the assignment in this action as set
    forth     in     the     subject       asset       purchase     agreement.          Haskell
    Properties, LLC, supra, slip op. at 19.                         Those principles were
    affirmed by the Court in Givaudan Fragrance Corporation, supra,
    227 N.J. at 327 (holding "once an insured loss has occurred, an
    anti-assignment clause in an occurrence policy may not provide a
    basis for an insurer's declination of coverage based on the
    insured's assignment of the right to invoke policy coverage for
    that loss").
    Accordingly,           we    are    satisfied        our    application       of   those
    principles       is     entirely       consistent        with   the    Supreme      Court's
    decision.        We do not discern a reason to alter our original
    opinion.
    Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.                             We do not
    retain jurisdiction.
    3                                    A-1452-14T2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A-1452-14T2

Filed Date: 6/29/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/29/2017