Decarlo v. Pettinato

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

Decarlo v. Pettinato

697 A.2d 145, 303 N.J. Super. 410, 1997 N.J. Super. LEXIS 379

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division·Decided June 19, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

This matter having been duly presented by the court, it is on this 19th day of June, 1997, hereby Ordered as follows:

The motion for leave to appeal is granted and the court elects pursuant to R. 2:8 — 3(b) summarily to decide the appeal.

[411] We affirm the denial of the summary judgment motion of Cigna Property & Casualty Companies for an adjudication of non-coverage based on the business exclusion.

The balance of the summary judgment requiring Cigna Property & Casualty Companies to defend and indemnify is reversed as improvident and premature.

/s/ FOR THE COURT:

/s/ SYLVIA B.PRESSLER, P.J.A.D.

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

This matter having been duly presented by the court, it is on this 19th day of June, 1997, hereby Ordered as follows:

The motion for leave to appeal is granted and the court elects pursuant to R. 2:8 — 3(b) summarily to decide the appeal.

[411] We affirm the denial of the summary judgment motion of Cigna Property & Casualty Companies for an adjudication of non-coverage based on the business exclusion.

The balance of the summary judgment requiring Cigna Property & Casualty Companies to defend and indemnify is reversed as improvident and premature.

/s/ FOR THE COURT:

/s/ SYLVIA B.PRESSLER, P.J.A.D.

Decarlo v. Pettinato, 697 A.2d 145, 303 N.J. Super. 410, 1997 N.J. Super. LEXIS 379 (N.J. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

697 A.2d 145 (Decarlo v. Pettinato) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related