Legal Opinion
Martusus v. Tartamosa
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided July 9, 1997PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*151The opinion of the Court was delivered by
COLEMAN, J.
The focus of this appeal is on the scope of permission to use an automobile. The narrow issue is whether the initial permission rule, first enunciated in Matits v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 33 N.J. 488, 166 A.2d 345 (1960), should be applied to excess catastrophe (“umbrella”) policies. The trial court held that the Matits rule should not apply. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal and summarily reversed by order. We granted leave to appeal, 146 N.J. 562, 683 A.2d 1159 (1996), and now affirm.
I
-A-
General Accident Insurance Co.…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Kievit v. Loyal Protective Life InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1961
- Mazzilli v. Acc. & Cas. Ins. Co. of WinterthurSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1961
- Motor Club of America Insurance v. PhillipsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1974
- Doto v. RussoSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1995
- Matits v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- French v. HernandezSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2005
- Rutgers Casualty Insurance v. CollinsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1998
- Fortunato v. Highlands Ins. GroupNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2001
- Repossession Spec. v. Geico Ins.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2012
- Martusus v. TartamosaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1997
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.