X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
VOL. 3 NO. 36 DECISIONS RELEASED FEBRUARY 24, 1995 INSURANCE 22-2-5027 George Martz, et al. v. Terree V. Reiman, et al., App. Div. (14 pp.) In an accident where insured s daughter was hit by a car in a carwash parking lot while insured was vacuuming her car, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment motions in favor of both the insured s automobile liability carrier and homeowner s carrier since (1) although vacuuming was an act of “maintenance” within the terms of the auto policy, there was an insufficient causal nexus between the act of vacuuming and the accident, and (2) the homeowner s policy specifically excluded from coverage any occurrence in which the insured is liable for bodily injury to another insured, which included all relatives who resided with insured. MUNICIPAL LAW 30-2-5028 Twp. of Marlboro v. Planning Bd. of Holmdel, et al., App. Div. (14 pp.) Although planning board-mandated cash payments for firefighting equipment and construction–a condition for approval of developers’ site plans–may have been illegal since they are not specified in the enabling statute, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-42, the condition was not arbitrary because it bore a reasonable relationship to municipal burdens created by the development, and the trial judge should have simply deleted the conditions, not voided the approvals; the court remanded the consolidated case for further action. TORTS 36-2-5029 American Business Academy v. Jean M. Melone, et al., App. Div. (10 pp.) In a libel and defamation case, the trial judge committed serious errors in his instructions in failing to identify the specific statements alleged to be libelous and never clearly defining the term “defamatory statement,” as well as erring in his instruction on punitive damages; the jury s verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages for libel and tortious interference was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-2-5030 State of New Jersey v. John D. Walters., App. Div. (4 pp.) Where the sentencing judge violated re-sentencing principles by interposing a new aggravating factor not considered at the initial sentence, the sentence is vacated and remanded for entry of new sentence. 14-2-5031 State of New Jersey v. Robert Miller, App. Div. (13 pp.) While it is well settled that a prosecutor may not elicit prejudicial victim impact testimony through family members where this evidence has no bearing on the guilt of defendant, the testimony here was merely background information regarding the victim s family used to place other evidence into context, was neither inflammatory nor extensive and did not substantially prejudice defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.