Breslin v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

354 A.2d 635, 69 N.J. 435, 1976 N.J. LEXIS 263
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedMarch 18, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 354 A.2d 635 (Breslin v. Liberty Mutual Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Breslin v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, 354 A.2d 635, 69 N.J. 435, 1976 N.J. LEXIS 263 (N.J. 1976).

Opinions

Pee Cukiam.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed esentially for the reasons set forth in the well-reasoned opinion of Judge Lynch.

The plaintiffs relied substantially on Koutrakos v. Long Island College Hospital, 78 N. Y. Misc. 2d 39, 355 N. Y. S. 2d 718 (Sup. Ct. 1974) which held, inter alia, that the provision of the New York Workmen’s Compensation Law which provided that in a third party action brought by the injured employee reimbursement was to be made to the workmen’s compensation carrier at no expense (including attorney’s fees) to it, violated the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Federal and New York Constitutions. It should be noted that the Appellate Division reversed that part of the decision. 47 A. D. 2d 500, 368 N. Y. S. 2d 528 (1975).

In Klacik v. Kovacs, 111 N. J. Super. 307, 311-312 (App. Div. 1970), certif. den. 57 N. J. 237, (1970), Judge Matthews wrote: “In the absence of statute, rule of court or contract, the mere accrual of benefits to a third party does not entitle an attorney to recover any compensation from those benefited.” I-Ie pointed out that there was a diversity of opinion among the states on whether reimbursement of an insurer should be made after deduction of reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in effecting the recovery. He added that “[p]ublic policy here, however, is in equipoise”, but concluded the more equitable rule is to provide for such deduction. This is a far cry [437]*437from holding that the contrary view is so offensive to our public policy that the foreign law should not apply.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human Services
9 A.3d 882 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2010)
Morrone v. Thuring
759 A.2d 1238 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2000)
Bell v. Merchants & Businessmen's Mut.
575 A.2d 878 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1990)
Warthen v. Toms River Community Mem. Hosp.
488 A.2d 229 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1985)
Carter v. Sandberg
458 A.2d 924 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1983)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Estate of Simmons
417 A.2d 488 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1980)
Draper v. Airco, Inc.
580 F.2d 91 (Third Circuit, 1978)
Hedgebeth v. Medford
378 A.2d 226 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1977)
Lewandowski v. Nat'l Grange Mut. Ins. Co.
374 A.2d 489 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1977)
Breslin v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
354 A.2d 635 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
354 A.2d 635, 69 N.J. 435, 1976 N.J. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breslin-v-liberty-mutual-insurance-nj-1976.