Lawyers Spar Over Adequacy of Notice in UIM Case Before High Court
Lawyers squared off before the New Jersey Supreme Court on Wednesday over whether a policyholder should be allowed to pursue a claim against his UIM carrier, even though his lawyer failed to give proper notice to the carrier that there was a separate claim pending against the at-fault driver.
January 04, 2018 at 10:54 AM
4 minute read
New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Barry Albin
Lawyers squared off before the New Jersey Supreme Court on Wednesday over whether a policyholder should be allowed to pursue a claim against his UIM carrier, even though his lawyer failed to give proper notice to the carrier that there was a separate claim pending against the at-fault driver.
A lawyer representing the UIM carrier, New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co., asked the court to overturn a 2-1 appeals court ruling where the majority said the UIM claim could go forward to at least give the plaintiff, Robert Ferrante, and his attorney, Joseph Grimes, a chance to demonstrate that NJM suffered no prejudice by the lack of notice or the fact that Ferrante received $100,000 from the other driver's carrier.
“Telling half the truth is like telling a whole lie,” NJM's counsel, Daniel Pomeroy, of Pomeroy, Heller & Ley in New Providence, told the court Wednesday.
Grimes, of Grimes & Grimes in Cherry Hill, countered that there was “no effort to deceive.”
The at-fault driver, who was not identified, had a policy with Allstate Insurance Co. with a $100,000 limit. At a trial, following a failed arbitration proceeding, Grimes and the driver's attorney entered into a $25,000-$100,000 high-low agreement. The Salem County jury awarded Ferrante and his wife $250,000 in damages, triggering the high. Allstate paid the $100,000 as required by the high-low agreement.
It was only after the verdict was announced that Grimes notified NJM of the UIM claim. NJM at first waived any subrogation rights after Grimes told the carrier that the at-fault driver was judgment-proof. NJM later reversed its position and decided to fight the UIM claim. A trial judge dismissed the UIM action based on Ferrante's failure to provide NJM with adequate notice of the underlying claim and the high-low agreement. NJM has also argued that, had it known of the underlying action, it could have intervened to protect its interests.
In September 2016, Appellate Division Judges Jack Sabatino and Amy O'Connor said that while the lack of proper notice was “troubling,” Ferrante should have a chance to show that NJM was not prejudiced by the high-low agreement, especially since Grimes said early on that he believed Ferrante's damages were worth more than $100,000 and that he agreed to the $100,000 cap because that represented the limits of the at-fault driver's Allstate policy.
Appellate Division Judge Allison Accurso dissented, saying it appeared that the lack of notice was a deliberate move. NJM then appealed.
Before the Supreme Court Wednesday, Pomeroy said: “If you leave things out, it's a lie. The system will break down … if there isn't candor.”
Chief Justice Stuart Rabner asked what should occur if Ferrante can show NJM suffered no prejudice.
If there is intentional misleading, Pomeroy said, “you don't need prejudice.”
“There is always the potential for prejudice,” added Justice Barry Albin.
Pomeroy said that if the lack of notice is caused by simple negligence or a mistake, there should be a rebuttable presumption of prejudice. “But if it's intentional, there is no need to show prejudice,” he said.
Grimes argued, ”There was no effort by me to deceive NJM,” although he acknowledged, when asked by Justice Jaynee LaVecchia, that notice was not provided when the lawsuit against the other driver was filed, or after the failed arbitration.
“I did not,” Grimes replied. “But it was not intentionally misleading,” he added.
UIM carriers are entitled to what is called a Longworth notice when a UIM plaintiff receives a settlement offer, or if an arbitration award is rejected because it was insufficient. The requirement stems from the Appellate Division's 1988 ruling in Longworth v. Van Houten.
The state Supreme Court, in its 1995 ruling in Rutgers v. Vassas, expanded on that and required UIM carriers to receive notice when a complaint against a tortfeasor is filed and when it is determined that the tortfeasor's insurance coverage is insufficient to cover the plaintiff's damages.
The case is Ferrante v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
Appellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
4 minute readChiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
5 minute readOn the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250