Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3206-13T4
03-23-2015
MELISSA PAYOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent
Erroll J. Haythorn argued the cause for appellant (Gill & Chamas, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Haythorn, of counsel and on the brief). Ronald S. Yuro argued the cause for respondent (Camassa & Yuro, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Yuro, of counsel and on the brief; Christopher M. Brady, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Reisner and Haas. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-6496-12. Erroll J. Haythorn argued the cause for appellant (Gill & Chamas, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Haythorn, of counsel and on the brief). Ronald S. Yuro argued the cause for respondent (Camassa & Yuro, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Yuro, of counsel and on the brief; Christopher M. Brady, on the brief). PER CURIAM
In this dispute over underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage, plaintiff Melissa Payor appeals from two orders dated February 28, 2014, denying her motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment dismissing her complaint against defendant New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (NJM). We affirm.
The facts can be summarized briefly. Plaintiff, who lived in her father's household, was the named insured on her own $100,000 NJM policy. On April 2, 2008, plaintiff was injured in an accident with a driver who also had a $100,000 policy. After settling with the other driver, plaintiff made a UIM claim against her father's separate NJM policy, which had a $500,000 limit. The father's policy, however, had a step-down clause applying to any person "insured" under the policy who was not a "named insured" on that policy. The declarations page of the father's policy had a section clearly labeled "named insured," which listed only the father. Moreover, plaintiff was not listed on the declarations page at all. NJM denied plaintiff's claim based on the step-down clause.
On this appeal, plaintiff concedes that "the wording of the [step-down clause] has been deemed sufficient pursuant to applicable case law." However, plaintiff argues that the father's policy was "ambiguous," and therefore she is entitled to coverage under the "reasonable expectation doctrine" because her father would have expected that his UIM coverage would be available to her. See Lehrhoff v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 271 N.J. Super. 340, 346-48 (App. Div. 1994).
While admitting that her father was the only named insured listed on the policy, plaintiff argues that the term "named insured" was not defined in the policy and therefore must be ambiguous. She further contends that as a matter of law, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2(g), an insured's spouse is deemed to be a named insured, even if not listed as such, and that fact in some way renders the term "named insured" ambiguous. We find no merit in those arguments. Lehrhoff is not on point, because plaintiff was not listed on the declarations page of her father's policy. There was no ambiguity. See Zacarias v. Allstate Ins. Co., 168 N.J. 590, 602-03 (2001); Severino v. Malachi, 409 N.J. Super. 82, 98-99 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 200 N.J. 505 (2009). Plaintiff's appellate arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION