Calabria v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 September 1949
• Docket Number: No. A-419.,A-419.
• Citation: 68 A.2d 283
• Parties: CALABRIA v. LIBERTY MUT. INS. CO. et al.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

68 A.2d 283

CALABRIA

v.LIBERTY MUT. INS. CO. et al.

No. A-419.

Superior Court of New Jersey.Appellate Division.

Submitted July 26, 1949.

Decided Sept. 1, 1949.

Michael Calabria filed a proceeding against the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, insurance carrier, and others to recover compensation for disability resulting from chrome exposure. The Workmen's Compensation Bureau imposed liability on the Company, and it appealed to the Hudson County Court. The Hudson County Court, 63 A.2d 717, also imposed liability on the Company, and it appealed.

The Company contended that evidence was insufficient to support a conclusion of the Bureau and the County Court that disability occurred during period of coverage of policy issued by the Company because claimant continued his exposure to chrome after coverage of policy terminated.

The Superior Court, Appellate Division, Brennan, J.S.C., affirmed the judgment, holding that evidence was sufficient to sustain conclusion that disability occurred during period of coverage.

Before Judges JAYNE, DAVIDSON and WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, Jr.

John W. Taylor, Newark, for respondent-appellant Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

Arthur F. Mead, Newark, for respondent-respondent Employer's Mut. of Wisconsin, (Cox & Walburg, Newark, attorneys).

Joseph Coult, Newark, for respondent-respondent Hartford Accident & Indemnity Ins. Co. (Wilbur A. Stevens, Newark, attorney).

Joseph P. Dunn, Newark, for petitioner-respondent (John J. Bracken, Jr., Newark, on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, Jr., J.S.C.

This appeal challenges the concurring findings of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau and the Hudson County Court that appellant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is liable to pay an award for disability due to chrome exposure. The award itself is not challenged. The issues are whether the disability occurred during the period of appellant's coverage and, if it did, whether the claim is compensable by appellant inasmuch as the employee continued the exposure after appellant's coverage terminated.

The employee was first employed February 18, 1942, while appellant insured the risk and except for four months starting July 11, 1946, was continuously employed and exposed to chrome to and including the Bureau hearings on January 8 and 29, 1948. Appellant's policy expired November 28, 1946, and thereafter successive policies of respondent Hartford, from November 29, 1946, to January 8, 1947, and of respondent Employers' Mutual, after January 8, 1947, covered the risk.

The Bureau and the County Court found that the disability due to chrome poisoning occurred during January 1946 in the period of appellant's coverage. There is ample evidence in the testimony to support this conclusion, and we shall not disturb it. It is true that frequently in cas...