Funk v. Allstate Insurance

412 A.2d 1049, 172 N.J. Super. 458, 1980 N.J. Super. LEXIS 466
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Funk v. Allstate Insurance. Read the opinion of the Court — 169 N.J. Super. 226
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division·Decided March 4, 1980·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Haines in his opinion in the trial court, 169 N.J.Super. 226 (Law Div.1979), except that our agreement with that opinion should not be deemed to reflect a unanimous agreement on our part with the expression of our brethren in Clay v. N. J. Special Joint Underwriting Ass’n, 160 N.J.Super. 188 (App.Div.1978). We need not undertake a reconsideration of the principles of Clay at this time since appellant’s decedent was not and, of course, now can never be in an occupational status because of his disability. The circumstances with which we deal are thus distinguishable and clearly beyond the coverage mandated by the statute or in the policy.

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

Funk v. Allstate Insurance, 412 A.2d 1049, 172 N.J. Super. 458, 1980 N.J. Super. LEXIS 466 (N.J. Ct. App. 1980).

412 A.2d 1049 (Funk v. Allstate Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Clay v. NJ Special Joint Underwriting Ass'n
389 A.2d 488 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1978)
Funk v. Allstate Insurance
404 A.2d 662 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1979)