Fantis Foods, Inc. v. NORTH RIVER INS.
Decision Date | 27 June 2000 |
Citation | 753 A.2d 176,332 N.J. Super. 250 |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Parties | FANTIS FOODS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent. |
David W. Field, for plaintiff-appellant (Lowenstein Sandler, attorneys; Mr. Field, on the brief).
Donald G. Sweetman, Parsippany, for defendant-respondent (Tell, Cheser & Breitbart, attorneys; Mr. Sweetman, on the brief).
Before Judges STERN, KESTIN and STEINBERG.
The opinion of the court was delivered by KESTIN, J.A.D.
This is a declaratory judgment action for insurance coverage. On cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court held that New York law governed and that, under the substantive standards of that state in respect of a single issue, plaintiff could not prevail. Accordingly, an order was entered granting defendant's motion for summary judgment, denying plaintiff's motion, and dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff appeals, arguing only that the motion judge erred in granting defendant's motion. Although we agree with the motion judge's determination that New York law governed the single issue before him, we disagree that New York law required a ruling in defendant's favor. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Both parties maintain their principal offices in New Jersey and both conduct business in New York. The general liability policy in question was sold to plaintiff in New York by a New York "producer". It was issued on a renewal basis for the period from August 5, 1995 to August 5, 1996, providing multi-peril, "all risks" coverage for plaintiff's buildings in several states. One of the covered buildings, vacant at the time the risk materialized, is in Manhattan. The underlying issue is whether the policy covers the imminent collapse of that New York City structure. Plaintiff represents that it seeks a judgment of $123,506.38 for repair costs, plus attorneys' fees, interest and costs. We note that plaintiff's "claims for extra-contractual damages, including consequential damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees" were dismissed without prejudice in a consent order entered early in the pendency of the matter.
We agree with the trial court's ruling that, in general, to the extent a difference in substantive law rule between New York and New Jersey is established on the issue before it, see Pfizer, Inc. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 154 N.J. 187, 199, 712 A.2d 634 (1998)
(a choice of law decision is necessary "`only ... when the laws of the involved states differ on the point in issue'")(quoting Robert A. Sedler, A Real World Perspective on Choice of Law, 48 Mercer L.Rev. 781, 783 (1997)), that issue must be seen to be governed by New York law.
629 A.2d 885 ( ). Nevertheless, in the instant matter, given the lack of a choice-of-law provision in the insurance policy, and even regarding the preference in favor of uniform-contract-interpretation approaches to be one of general applicability, all significant party-oriented considerations—save for the fact that both parties do business in New Jersey as well as in New York—have a New York focus.
The Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971) provides the general choice of law factors to be applied where a claim springs from a contract:
Applying the type of reasoning used in the flexible governmental interest analysis approach required for resolving other like questions, see Veazey v. Doremus, 103 N.J. 244, 247, 510 A.2d 1187 (1986)
( ); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Estate of Simmons, 84 N.J. 28, 34-37, 417 A.2d 488 (1980) ( ), we conclude that New York's connection with the subject matter and the risks it engenders is far more extensive and qualitatively meaningful in the practical sense than is New Jersey's association with the parties simply because they are business domiciliaries. The omnibus factors to be applied in evaluating the various levels of relationship which are pertinent to the flexible governmental interest analysis approach are also set out in the Restatement:
(f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and
(g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied.
We observe that even if no feature of this case strongly suggested that the law of one state or the other governed under the Restatement`s choice-of-law tests, no real interest of either of the parties would impel a particular conclusion, apart from a more or less hospitable approach to plaintiff's claim stemming from whatever differing policies and viewpoints may pertain in the two states. See, e.g., Permacel v. American Ins. Co., 299 N.J.Super. 400, 411, 691 A.2d 383 (App.Div.1997)
. As noted by the trial court, even if there were an essential equipoise in factors bearing upon the choice of law determination, the preference for New York law would be buttressed by an insurance-specific provision of the Restatement which establishes "the principal location of the insured risk" as the paramount evaluative standard in the absence of a more significant relationship to another state.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Watson
...... was working as a teller at a bank in North Brunswick. Around noon, a man entered the bank ...CB Com. Real Est. Grp., Inc. , 162 N.J. 449, 466, 744 A.2d 1186 (2000) ("It ...Div. 2015) (citing Fantis Foods, Inc. v. N. River Ins. Co. , 332 N.J. ......
-
Karas v. Liberty Ins. Corp.
...imminent danger and a degree of damage that indicates that the building will not stand"); Fantis Foods, Inc. v. North River Ins. Co. , 332 N.J. Super. 250, 260, 753 A.2d 176 (App. Div.) (if policy contains no definition of term "collapse," "such a policy must be taken to cover any serious i......
-
Certification from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Queen Anne Park Homeowners Ass'n v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
...threatening the preservation of the building as a structure or ... health and safety’ ” (quoting Fantis Foods, Inc. v. N. River Ins. Co., 332 N.J.Super. 250, 260, 753 A.2d 176 (App.Div.2000) )). An undefined term “collapse” in an insurance policy is an ambiguous term because it is susceptib......
-
State v. Watson
...... was working as a teller at a bank in North Brunswick. Around. noon, a man entered the ...501, 504 n.2 (App. Div. 2015) (citing Fantis. Foods v. N. River Ins. Co. , 332 ......