Demarco v. Stoddard

3 Citing cases

  1. Wesco Ins. Co. v. Luretha M. Stribling LLC

    Civil Action No.: 15-3594 (JLL) (D.N.J. Sep. 11, 2015)   Cited 1 times
    Refusing to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over insurance declaratory judgment action when there was a pending state court legal malpractice action

    This rationale was expanded to the field of medical malpractice insurance in DeMarco v. Stoddard, where the Appellate Division held that "[t]he statutory minimum coverages under our state laws are not subject to post-claim rescission by the insurance carrier because of the insured's fraud in procuring the policy." 434 N.J. Super. 352, 369 (App. Div.), appeal granted, 218 N.J. 270 (2014). Thus, at least in the fields of auto insurance and medical malpractice insurance, the rescission remedy available to a defrauded insurance carrier is "molded and shaped" by the court under equitable principles so that innocent third parties do not lose the benefits of mandatory insurance protection; instead, voided policies are reformed to provide the minimum liability coverage mandated by law.

  2. Demarco v. Stoddard

    223 N.J. 363 (N.J. 2015)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses

    We granted the RIJUA's motion for leave to appeal. 218 N.J. 270, 94 A.3d 908 (2014). We also granted motions to appear as amicus curiae by five entities: New Jersey Civil Justice Institute (NJCJI), New Jersey Physicians United Reciprocal Exchange (NJPURE), Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (Property Casualty Insurers), Insurance Council of New Jersey (Insurance Council), and New Jersey Association for Justice (NJAJ).

  3. Encompass Ins. Co. v. Quincy Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

    DOCKET NO. A-3000-12T4 (App. Div. Nov. 14, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    DeMarco v. Stoddard, 4 34 N.J. Super. 352, 381 (App. Div.), appeal granted, 218 N.J. 270 (2014); Iafelice, supra, 319 N.J. Super. at 590; Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 2.6 at on R. 4:42-9 at p. 1805 (2015); e.g., Sears Mortgage Corp., supra, 134 N.J. at 356 (awarding fees though the insurer "may not have been acting in bad faith"). The trial court's order gives the impression that a finding of bad faith is required to support a counsel fee award.