Flynn v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
Citation | 370 A.2d 61,146 N.J.Super. 484 |
Parties | James M. FLYNN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. James GRIECO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
Decision Date | 03 February 1977 |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
William N. Dimin, Hackensack, for respondent James M. Flynn (Walsh, Sciuto & Dimin, Hackensack, attorneys).
Steven J. Stillman, Hackensack, for respondent James Grieco (Lucianna, Bierman & Stillman, Hackensack, attorneys).
Before Judges LORA, CRANE and MICHELS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
MICHELS, J.A.D.
Defendant Hartford Fire Insurance Company (Hartford) appeals from a judgment of the Law Division declaring that its liability policy of insurance issued to the Borough of Englewood Cliffs (borough) provided coverage to plaintiffs James M. Flynn and James Grieco, police The facts are not in dispute. Police officers Flynn and Geieco, while responding to an emergency call at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Delchop in Englewood Cliffs, were confronted by Delchop. Delchop who was armed, raised his gun and allegedly stated that he would kill the two officers. The officers thereupon shot and killed Delchop.
officers employed by the borough, with respect to a wrongful death claim made against them and the borough.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Law Division agreed with plaintiffs and entered judgment in their favor against Hartford, declaring that Hartford was required to defend and indemnify plaintiffs with respect to the wrongful action instituted against them. Hartford appeals.
Our function in construing a policy of insurance, as with any other contract, is to search broadly for the probable common intent of the parties in an effort to find a reasonable meaning in keeping with the expressed general purposes of the policy. See Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Robert, 36 N.J. 561, 567, 178 A.2d 185 (1962); Tooker v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co., 128 N.J.Super. 217, 222--223, 319 A.2d 743 (App.Div.1974); Ins. Co. of State of Penna. v. Palmieri, 81 N.J.Super. 170, 179, 195 A.2d 205 (App.Div.1963), certif. den. 41 N.J. 389, 197 A.2d 15 (1964). However, when the policy of insurance is clear and unambiguous, it has long been the law of this State that the court is bound to enforce the policy as it is written. It is not the function of the court to make a better contract for the parties than they themselves have seen fit to enter into or to alter it for the benefit of one party and to the detriment of the other. Linden Motor Freight Co., Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 40 N.J. 511, 525, 193 A.2d 217 (1963); James v. Federal Ins. Co., 5 N.J. 21, 24--25, 73 A.2d 720 (1950); Kupfersmith v. Delaware Ins. Co., 84 N.J.L. 271, 275, 86 A. 399 (E. & A. 1912); Am. Leg. Hosp. v. St. Paul Fire Ins. Co., 106 N.J.Super. 393, 397, 256 A.2d 57 (App.Div.1969).
Applying these principles to the policy of insurance here under consideration, we are firmly convinced that the policy does not nor was it intended to provide coverage to the individual employees of the borough, such as plaintiffs policemen. The policy designated the borough as the only named insured and described the named insured as the municipality. In the circumstances it is clear that the borough is the insured and not the individual employees of that borough. While we recognize that a municipal corporation, such as the borough, is merely a legal entity and can act only by and through its officers and employees, this does not mean that its officers and employees are A fortiori covered individually by the policy of insurance issued to the municipal corporation, where it is the only named insured. Cf. 3 Couch on Insurance, 2d § 23.26 (Dec. 1976 Supp.); Shapiro v. Di Guillio, 95 Ill.App.2d 184, 237 N.E.2d 771, 775-- Furthermore, we find no merit in plaintiffs' claims that the Comprehensive General Liability insurance Endorsement created any ambiguity in the name or description of the insured or those intended to be covered by the policy. The Hartford policy provided two general types of coverage to the borough: property coverage under Section I and liability coverage under Section II. Under the liability coverage Hartford agreed to pay on behalf of the borough all sums which the borough became legally obligated to pay as damages because of the death or injury to third persons arising out of the hazards covered by the policy. The hazards which Hartford agreed to cover for the borough are set forth in the policy and the various endorsements attached thereto. The Liability Insurance Form and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McNeilab, Inc. v. North River Ins. Co.
...American Home Assoc. Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co., 190 N.J. Super. 477, 464 A.2d 1128 (App.Div.1983); Flynn v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 146 N.J. Super. 484, 370 A.2d 61 (App.Div.1977); Tooker v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 128 N.J. Super. 217, 319 A.2d 743 (App.Div.1974); Travelers Ins. Co. v. T......
-
American Cas. Co. v. Resolution Trust Corp.
...New Jersey law, courts enforce the policy as written when its meaning and language are clear and unambiguous. Flynn v. Hartford Fire Ins., 146 N.J.Super. 484, 370 A.2d 61 (1977). If there is no ambiguity, a strained or distorted construction will not be indulged in and the clauses in an ins......
-
Stone v. Royal Ins. Co.
...as it finds it; the court cannot make a better contract for the parties than they themselves made. Flynn v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 146 N.J.Super. 484, 488, 370 A.2d 61 (App.Div.1977), certif. den. 75 N.J. 5, 379 A.2d 236 (1977); Am. Leg. Hosp. v. St. Paul's Fire Ins. Co., 106 N.J.Supe......
-
Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. CNA Ins. Co.
...than they themselves have made. Royal Ins. Co., supra, 271 N.J.Super. at 416, 638 A.2d 924 (quoting Flynn v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 146 N.J.Super. 484, 488, 370 A.2d 61 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 75 N.J. 5, 379 A.2d 236 (1977), and citing Kampf v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 33 N.J. 36, 161 A......