Fenwick MacHinery, Inc. v. A. Tomae & Sons, Inc.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Fenwick MacHinery, Inc. v. A. Tomae & Sons, Inc.

401 A.2d 1087, 79 N.J. 590, 1979 N.J. LEXIS 1225

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided May 16, 1979·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We reverse essentially for the reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion of Judge Michels below. He concluded, as do we, that “the policy of insurance issued by third-party defendant The American Insurance Company (American) to defendant and third-party plaintiff A. Tomae & Sons, Inc. (Tomae) did not provide coverage for the unscheduled contractors’ equipment owned by the plaintiff Penwick Machinery, Inc. (Penwick) but leased to Tomae.”

We emphasize the point that we are not here concerned with and hence need not pass upon the question of whether the policy language is free of ambiguity when tested by “[an] objectively reasonable interpretation of the average policyholder,” DiOrio v. New Jersey Manufacturers Ins. Co., 79 N. J. 257 (1979). Here the third-party defendants Brounell, Kramer, Waldor, Insurance Brokers, held themselves out as experienced in the field. Specifically, they are “expected to possess reasonable knowledge of the types of policies, their different terms, and the coverage available in the area in which [their] principal seeks to be protected.” Rider v. Lynch, 42 N. J. 465, 476 (1964); Bates v. Gambino, 72 [592]*592N. J. 219, 224-25 (1977). Surely the brokers, charged -with this superior knowledge, cannot take advantage of whatever deficiencies might be uncovered in the policy language when viewed from the perspective of an unschooled and unwary policyholder. Cf., e. g., Kievit v. Loyal Protective Life Ins. Co., 34 N. J. 475, 482-83 (1961); Bryan Const. Co. v. Employers Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 60 N. J. 375, 377-78 (1972).

Although the question has not been raised before this court, a judgment in favor of A. Tomae & Sons, Inc. against both its brokers, Brounell, Kramer, Waldor, and defendant The American Insurance Company, appears incongruous.

Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of judgment of indemnification in favor of third-party defendant, The American Insurance Company, against third-party defendants, Brounell, Kramer, Waldor.

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

Per Curiam.

We reverse essentially for the reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion of Judge Michels below. He concluded, as do we, that “the policy of insurance issued by third-party defendant The American Insurance Company (American) to defendant and third-party plaintiff A. Tomae & Sons, Inc. (Tomae) did not provide coverage for the unscheduled contractors’ equipment owned by the plaintiff Penwick Machinery, Inc. (Penwick) but leased to Tomae.”

We emphasize the point that we are not here concerned with and hence need not pass upon the question of whether the policy language is free of ambiguity when tested by “[an] objectively reasonable interpretation of the average policyholder,” DiOrio v. New Jersey Manufacturers Ins. Co., 79 N. J. 257 (1979). Here the third-party defendants Brounell, Kramer, Waldor, Insurance Brokers, held themselves out as experienced in the field. Specifically, they are “expected to possess reasonable knowledge of the types of policies, their different terms, and the coverage available in the area in which [their] principal seeks to be protected.” Rider v. Lynch, 42 N. J. 465, 476 (1964); Bates v. Gambino, 72 [592]*592N. J. 219, 224-25 (1977). Surely the brokers, charged -with this superior knowledge, cannot take advantage of whatever deficiencies might be uncovered in the policy language when viewed from the perspective of an unschooled and unwary policyholder. Cf., e. g., Kievit v. Loyal Protective Life Ins. Co., 34 N. J. 475, 482-83 (1961); Bryan Const. Co. v. Employers Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 60 N. J. 375, 377-78 (1972).

Although the question has not been raised before this court, a judgment in favor of A. Tomae & Sons, Inc. against both its brokers, Brounell, Kramer, Waldor, and defendant The American Insurance Company, appears incongruous.

Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of judgment of indemnification in favor of third-party defendant, The American Insurance Company, against third-party defendants, Brounell, Kramer, Waldor.

Fenwick MacHinery, Inc. v. A. Tomae & Sons, Inc., 401 A.2d 1087, 79 N.J. 590, 1979 N.J. LEXIS 1225 (N.J. 1979).

Pincite

401 A.2d 1087 (Fenwick MacHinery, Inc. v. A. Tomae & Sons, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related