Because the underinsurance coverage provided to defendant by his personal Pennsylvania insurance policy (excess coverage) was not "similar" to the coverage provided by the commercial auto policy issued by plaintiff to his employer in New Jersey (gap coverage), the step-down provision limiting coverage in the New Jersey policy was not triggered, and the trial court erred in holding that the New Jersey policy did not provide additional UIM coverage above that provided by defendant's personal policy.
October 24, 2005 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
Presented by BigVoodoo
New Jersey Law Journal honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in New Jersey with their dedication to the profession.
This conference aims to help insurers and litigators better manage complex claims and litigation.
Recognizing innovation in the legal technology sector for working on precedent-setting, game-changing projects and initiatives.
We are an established and highly regarded White Plains law firm seeking a dedicated and skilled mid-to-senior level associate attorney with ...
AMENDED NOTICE OF BANKRUPTCY JUDGE VACANCIES DISTRICT OF UTAH The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit seeks applicati...
The New Jersey State Commission of Investigation (SCI) is seeking an experienced and visionary leader to serve as its next Executive Directo...