 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Skeete v. Dorvius6/10/2005
filed a separate dissenting opinion in which CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICE RIVERA-SOTO join.
JUSTICE ALBIN, concurring.
I concur in Justice Long's opinion that Prudential did not adequately convey to Queenie Thomas, its insured, the policy changes to her UM/UIM coverage. I write separately to give additional reasons for affirming the judgment of the Appellate Division. The UM/UIM coverage suggested in the insurance policy's declaration page was at odds with the detailed information Thomas received in the blizzard of documents provided by Prudential. I have no doubt that a reasonably intelligent insured reading the declaration page in this case would have been misled as to the UM/UIM coverage policy limits. I am, therefore, in full accord with the Appellate Division's determination that Thomas was entitled to the coverage that she reasonably expected under the policy, particularly because Prudential failed to provide her with succinct and accurate information on the declaration page.
Our case law recognizes that " personal automobile insurance policy is a bulky document, arcane and abstruse in the extreme to the uninitiated, unversed and, therefore, typical policyholder." Lehrhoff v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 271 N.J. Super. 340, 346 (App. Div. 1994); see also Doto v. Russo, 140 N.J. 544, 555 (1995). In Lehrhoff, supra, Judge Pressler, writing for the appellate panel, stressed the "signal importance" of the declaration page in "defin the insured's reasonable expectations of coverage." 271 N.J. Super. at 346-47.
The Lehrhoff panel concluded that it is the declaration page, the one page of the policy tailored to the particular insured and not merely boilerplate, which must be deemed to define coverage and the insured's expectation of coverage. And . . . reasonable expectations of coverage raised by the declaration page cannot be contradicted by the policy's boilerplate unless the declaration page itself clearly so warns the insured. [Id. at 347.]
We quoted the language above with approval in Zacarias v. Allstate Ins. Co., 168 N.J. 590, 602 (2001). We noted that we "share the sentiments expressed by the Appellate Division in Lehrhoff in respect of the importance of the declarations sheet." Ibid. We also "emphasize . . . that the one page most likely to be read and understood by the insured is the declarations sheet." Id. at 603. In that regard, we "advised [insurers] to explore ways to incorporate as much information as may be reasonably included in the declarations sheet." Id. at 603-04. Last year, in President v. Jenkins, we asserted again that we "place particular emphasis on the declarations page when determining the reasonable expectations of the insured." 180 N.J. 550, 565 (2004) (citing Zacarias, supra, 168 N.J. at 602-03; Lehrhoff, supra, 271 N.J. Super. at 346-47).
In applying those principles to this case, I believe that the average insured would reach completely different conclusions regarding the UM/UIM coverage limits in Thomas's policy depending upon whether she read the declaration page or the fine print on the policy amendment that came enclosed with a volume of other material. Under the terms of her original insurance policy, Thomas and each occupant of her insured vehicle had up to $100,000 of uninsured motorist coverage, with a total coverage cap of $300,000 for each accident. The declaration page provided Thomas with her "policy limits, coverages, and premiums" regarding uninsured motorists:
COVERAGES LIMITS PREMIUMS . . . .
Uninsured Motorists Bodily Injury
Each Person $100,000 $23
Each Accident $300,000
After Prudential amended the UM/UIM po
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 New Jersey Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|