Westchester Fire Insurance v. Continental Insurance

N.J.

Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey

Citations: 65 N.J. 152, 319 A.2d 732, 1974 N.J. LEXIS 166

Decision Date: 5/29/1974

Jurisdiction: NJ

Bluebook Citation: Westchester Fire Insurance v. Continental Insurance, 65 N.J. 152, 319 A.2d 732, 1974 N.J. LEXIS 166 (N.J. 1974)

More Cases: N.J. decisions from 1974

WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE CO., RICHARD B. HOLCOMBE, ALICE HOLCOMBE AND WILBUR S. HOLCOMBE, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS. v. THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANIES, NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE CO., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND MOTOR CLUB FIRE & CASUALTY CO., JACKIE W. EISNER, ETC., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. ELMER RICHARD POTENT, GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR RICHARD M. POTENT, AN INFANT, ELMER RICHARD POTENT AND CHARLOTTE POTENT, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. JACKIE W. EISNER, HALLIE EISNER, ELMER EISNER, SR. AND RICHARD B. HOLCOMBE, ETC., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Attorneys

Mr. Richard, D. Catenacci, argued the cause for appellant New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company, (McElroy, Connell, Foley & Geiser, attorneys).
Mr. William M. Lake, argued the cause for appellant Continental Insurance Company, (Dietrich, Stockman & Lake, attorneys).
Mr. Gerald Kaplan, argued the cause for respondent Motor Club Fire & Casualty Co., and Eisner, etc., (Lieb, Teich & Berlin, attorneys; Jerome S. Lieb on the brief).
Mr. Edward B. Meredith, argued the cause for respondents Westchester Fire Insurance Company and Holcombe, (Meredith, Meredith & Chase, attorneys).
Mr. Gregory V. Hopkins argued the cause for respondents Potent, (Frank V. Walsh, Jr., attorney).

majority Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by the Appellate Division. Westchester Fire Insurance Co., Richard B. Holcombe, Alice Holcombe and Wilbur S. Holcombe v. The Continental Insurance Companies New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co., Motor Club Fire & Casualty Co., Jackie W. Eisner, etc., and Elmer Richard Potent, Guardian Ad Litem for Richard M. Potent, an infant, Elmer Richard Potent and Charlotte Potent, individually, vs. Jackie W. Eisner, Haltie Eisner, Elmer Eisner, Sr., and Richard B. Holcombe, Sr., etc, 126 N. J. Super.

For reversal — Hone.

For affirmance — Justices Jacobs, Hall, Mountain, Sullivan and Pashman — 5.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.