White v. Howard

Decision Date01 May 1990
Docket NumberRENT-A-CA,A-C,T
Citation240 N.J.Super. 427,573 A.2d 513
PartiesNancy Maccluggage WHITE, Plaintiff, v. Cynthia HOWARD and Agency Rent-ar, Defendants. Cynthia HOWARD and Allstate Insurance Company, Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents and Cross-Appellants, v. AGENCY RENT-AR, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Respondent.
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

James E. Mackevich, for third-party defendant-appellant and cross-respondent Agency Rent-a-Car (Mackevich & Burke, attorneys; James E. Mackevich, Cranford, on the brief).

John D. Allen, III, for third-party plaintiffs-respondents and cross-appellants Cynthia Howard and Allstate Ins. Co. (Harwood Lloyd, Hackensack, attorney; John D. Allen, III, Morristown, and Paul E. Kiel, Hackensack, on the brief).


The opinion of the court was delivered by


After plaintiff's personal injury claim against defendant Howard was settled, Howard pursued her cross-claim for indemnity against Agency Rent-A-Car (Agency) from which she had leased the car she was driving at the time of the accident with plaintiff. Her insurer, Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate), joined in the matter; then she and Allstate filed a third-party complaint against Agency for a declaratory judgment that Agency, not Allstate, was responsible to the extent of its coverage to indemnify Howard for the settlement and cost of defense of plaintiff's claim. The amount of the settlement, $20,000, is not in dispute.

Judge David Follender granted a summary judgment to Allstate from which Agency appeals. The judge determined that Agency, a certified self-insurer under the New Jersey motor vehicle security-responsibility law, must act as defendant Howard's primary insurer and reimburse Allstate for the first $15,000 Allstate paid in settlement of plaintiff's claim. Furthermore, he awarded legal fees to Allstate in the amount of $3,214.38 to cover the fees and expenses Allstate incurred in defending the underlying tort claim. He denied Allstate's application for fees relating to the third-party declaratory judgment action. Allstate has cross-appealed from the denial of the latter legal fees.

The facts in this case are unusual only insofar as Agency's mode of doing business differs from the usual car rental format. Agency does not lease cars to all members of the public. It restricts its customers to owners of other vehicles whose cars are lost, stolen or, as here, under repair, and whose insurance contracts cover temporary substitute vehicles as additional insured vehicles. The rental contract signed by Howard required that she have her own liability insurance coverage covering her operation of Agency's vehicle:


* * * * * *

7. Customer represents and warrants that he has a valid policy of automobile liability insurance in force at the time of this rental and further represents and warrants that he shall maintain said policy of automobile liability insurance in force during the term of this rental. Lessor relying on said warranty and representation is not providing Liability-Property Damage automobile insurance or medical expense coverage to the Customer or any other person using or riding in said Vehicle. 1

Agency asserts that it had reduced its rental fee to reflect the fact that it does not supply its lessees with liability coverage but rather looks to the lessee's own contract of insurance. Furthermore, Agency verified that the contract was in effect and that it covered the replacement vehicle. When Howard entered into the contract, her Allstate policy specifically provided coverage for an automobile "used as a temporary substitute" while the originally insured vehicle "is out of normal use because of ... repair." The Allstate policy, however, contains an additional clause concerning which Agency made no inquiry:

If there is other applicable liability insurance we will pay only our share of the loss. Our share is the proportion that our limit of liability bears to the total of all applicable limits. However, any insurance we provide for a vehicle you do not own shall be excess over any other collectible insurance. [Emphasis supplied].

Therefore, allegedly unbeknown to Agency, the individual insurance possessed by Howard was by its terms excess rather than primary. 2

Agency's principal defense to Allstate's claim of exclusion based on this policy language concerns Agency's status as a self-insured, rather than the holder of a traditional separate policy of insurance covering its fleet of rental cars. We, as did the judge, reject this defense. While we recognize that the claim here has not been made under the financial responsibility law, see N.J.S.A. 45:21-1 et seq.; N.J.S.A. 39:6A-3 and 39:6B-1, Agency's decision to act as a self-insurer and secure the applicable New Jersey certificate was the functional equivalent of its writing a separate insurance policy covering itself. Cf. Ross v. Transport of New Jersey, 114 N.J. 132, 139-142, 553 A.2d 12 (1989); Transport of New Jersey v. Watler, 79 N.J. 400, 401, 400 A.2d 61 (1979); Mortimer v. Peterkin, 170 N.J.Super. 598, 600, 407 A.2d 1235 (App.Div.1979); Crocker v. Transport of New Jersey, 169 N.J.Super. 498, 404 A.2d 1293 (Law Div.1979) (in the context of the uninsured motorist coverage); Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Belford Trucking Co., 121 N.J.Super. 583, 584, 298 A.2d 288 (App.Div.1972), certif. den. 63 N.J. 502 (1973) (under the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 315, and applicable regulations); and cf. Comorote v. Massey, 110 N.J.Super. 124, 128, 264 A.2d 478 (Law Div.1970) (under an earlier statute, N.J.S.A. 39:6-46 (repealed)); and see 8A Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 4912 (1981); Annotation, Self-Insurance Against Liability As Other Insurance Within Meaning Of Liability Insurance Policy, 46 A.L.R.4th 707 §§ 3[a] and [b] (1986). In fact, the Supreme Court in Ross v. Transport of New Jersey, albeit in the uninsured motorist context, stated that "a private company's certificate of self-insurance is said to constitute an insurance 'policy' which subjects it to Title 17 UM requirements." 114 N.J. at 139, 553 A.2d 12. These cases, however, all relate to a member of the public opposing the self-insured.

In Am. Nurses Ass'n. v. Passaic General Hosp., 192 N.J.Super. 486, 471 A.2d 66 (App.Div.1984), modified 98 N.J. 83, 484 A.2d 670 (1984), this court characterized as a type of self-insurance an insured's retained deductible on a liability policy. Judge Pressler explained that such "self-insurance" is a legal or contractual assumption of certain risks, and not really insurance at all. (192 N.J.Super. at 491, 471 A.2d 66). However, in the context of compulsory liability insurance, this undertaking may be conveniently termed "qualified self-insurance," and "has been held to require the self-insurer to provide the public sought to be protected by the compulsory insurance with the same 'coverage' and incidents of 'coverage' as [the self-insured] would have had to have purchased but for the certificate of self-insurance." (Id. at 492, 471 A.2d 66). In that opinion Judge Pressler stated that this conclusion would not necessarily carry over to "other insurance" questions between insureds and insurers. Further, she noted that "the weight of authority rejects the premise that qualified self-insurance is other insurance on the theory that self-insurance and insurance are mutually exclusive concepts." (Id. at 493, 471 A.2d 66). Without expressing a view, she recognized that Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Belford Trucking Co., supra, indicates that "New Jersey apparently follows the minority view" which supports the principle "that qualified self-insurance constitutes other insurance." Ibid. The Supreme Court in affirming Am. Nurses Ass'n. (except for a modification on the liability ratio above the $100,000 which was subject to the "self-insurance" claim), stated:

Though a deductible is frequently referred to as self-insurance, its functional purpose is simply to alter the point at which an insurance company's obligation to pay will ripen. " 'Other insurance' [in an excess provision] means a policy of insurance of like kind issued by an insurance company in exchange for a premium charged." [16 G.Couch, Insurance 2d § 62.87 (rev. ed. 1983). While there is a split of authority on this question, the tendency has been not to regard self-insurance as "insurance." [98 N.J. at 88-89, 484 A.2d 670].

Both Judge Pressler's discussion of this issue and Justice Schreiber's confirming language on the point hold only that "self-insurance" to the extent that it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Scott v. Salerno
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • 11 Febrero 1997
    ...insured's deductible amount above which a policy will be effective, is not to be considered other insurance." White v. Howard, 240 N.J.Super. 427, 433, 573 A.2d 513 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 122 N.J. 339, 585 A.2d 354 "The key question is what, objectively, was the reasonable expectation ......
  • Champlain Cas. Co. v. Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc.
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 12 Junio 1998
    ..."other collectible insurance." As the briefing reflects, other jurisdictions are split on this issue. Compare White v. Howard, 240 N.J.Super. 427, 573 A.2d 513, 514 (A.D.1990) (self-insurance by rental agency was same as an insurance policy covering vehicle); Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. B......
  • Wake County Hosp. System v. National Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
    • 22 Octubre 1992
    ...Service, Inc., 268 S.C. 472, 234 S.E.2d 870 (1977) (compulsory automobile self-insurance is insurance); White v. Howard, 240 N.J.Super. 427, 573 A.2d 513 (Ct.App.Div. 1990) (compulsory automobile self-insurance is "other collectible insurance"); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Budget Rent-......
  • Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. Enter. Rent-A-Car Co. of Bos., Inc.
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 9 Mayo 2003
    ...686, 688–89 (Minn.1998) ; Chambers v. Agency Rent–A–Car, Inc., 878 P.2d 1164, 1165–67 (Utah Ct.App.1994) ; White v. Howard, 240 N.J.Super. 427, 573 A.2d 513, 515–16 (App.Div.1990).The practical effect is to encourage entities to self-insure their vehicles, at the expense of their drivers an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT