holding that "settling a case in violation of Longworth and Vassas is not a per se bar to UIM coverage. . . . [A UIM carrier] is entitled to protection against any prejudice it reasonably may have suffered as a result of [an insured's] unauthorized settlement with [an alleged tortfeasor, but a UIM carrier] is not, however, entitled to a windfall."
Summary of this case from Ferrante v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Grp.2000
holding that "settling a case in violation of Longworth and Vassas is not a per se bar to UIM coverage. . . . [A UIM carrier] is entitled to protection against any prejudice it reasonably may have suffered as a result of [an insured's] unauthorized settlement with [an alleged tortfeasor, but a UIM carrier] is not, however, entitled to a windfall."
Summary of this case from Ferrante v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Grp.Full title:PETITIONS FOR CERTIFICATION
Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey
Date published: Jan 1, 2000
Certification was denied. 165 N.J. 678 (2000). Williamson thereupon filed an action in lieu of a prerogative…
Vassilui v. Crysler Corp.See also Hreshko v. Harleysville Co., 337 N.J. Super. 104, 110 (App.Div. 2001); CNA Ins. Co. v. Cave, 332…