Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sroczynski v. Milek

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided December 17, 2008No. A-68/77 September Term 2007Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Rivera-Soto

On February 28, 2004, Walter Sroczynski was injured while in the employ of John Milek, t/a John Milek Construction (Milek). Two and one-half weeks later, Sroczynski filed a workers’ compensation claim against his employer. Then unknown to Sroczynski, his employer’s workers’ compensation insurance had been can-celled almost six months earlier by New Jersey Manufacturers *47Insurance Company (NJM), his employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, for non-payment of premiums. In doing so, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier sent a timely certified mail notice of cancellation to its…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Manalapan Realty v. Township Committee of the Township of ManalapanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1995
  2. Merin v. MaglakiSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1992
  3. Alan J. Cornblatt, PA v. BarowSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1998
  4. Knorr v. SmealSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2003
  5. County of Morris v. FauverSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1998

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API